vedrimir
12-25-2006, 12:05 AM
I respect all those who stand for the idea of everyone's individual interpretation, however, i think every song has some sort of purpose and direction and some basic foundations that are intersubjective and that have nothing to do with "individual interpretation", but rather serve as positive and certain orientation in making a halfway objective and meaningful interpretation. Interpretation can be "subjective", but it cant be arbitrary or unfounded. So, i cant satisfy with just coming up with "my own interpretation", i want to know where Maynard is coming from with this song before i draw my own conclusions. This song has been driving me mad for years now and i decided to make a couple of observations. I cant accept "make your own interpretation" concept as long as there are so many contradictions and gaps in every interpretation. Interpretation needs to be coherent and every lyric has to make sense and back up the interpretation given.
Its been told that this song is about drugs, and it has also been denied by that famous "half full/half empty" explanation. I think song could be interpreted in that way, as some sort of self-exploration related to drug experiences, but it doesnt hold up as firmly as interpretation i can give, and Maynard himself allegedly told the song was not about drugs. Also, title of this song has been related to Maynard's son's middle name, and while it is an impressive and unexpected hint, the rest of the lyrics just cant keep together. So, i dont really think this song is about Maynard getting a child.
Ill now try to give "my own interpretation", and ill try to clear some things up in regards to symbols used in this song. First of all, i accept half-empty/half full explanation. To me, this song cant be about Maynard's actual child, but it can only be about certain spiritual and emotional state that has something to do with different sort of "children", and different sort of birth.
As soon as i got into the lyrics for this song i had little doubt that this song was about writing songs, about art, about creative act. I felt Maynard was trying to depict the conflict poet feels while being torn by simultaneous desire to give in to his emotions and to restrain from doing so, being aware of the damage confessional act might cause. Thats why he says these too forces are "killing" him "just the same", even though theyre "both totally void of hate". Up to this point hes in passive and powerless situation and he only accentuates the same dilemma in the next verse. "Snake BEHIND me" (as a force that is preventing him from "giving a birth", or writing a song, or succumbing to his emotions) and "blood BEFORE me" (as a creative, inspirational force that is teasing him to "open up" his "heart again") are colliding and producing this half-full/half-empty condition that is "coming over like a storm". In the next sequence the song is taking a direction towards solving this conflict. Both music and lyrics get some sense of gradation and ascending. The verse goes like this : "venomous voice tempts me, drains me... drags me down like some sweet GRAVITY". The poet (well, Maynard, but its not actually Maynard, because art is never about real person's privacy but about artist's intimacy) is being slowly dragged into this temptation and hes getting closer to giving in and letting his emotions explode. At that point comes the first chorus. This "poet" is giving in, hes establishing a contact, a "connection" with this fatal, impersonal force that is being depicted as "blood before me" (some physiological impulse so to speak), as "venomous voice" that "tempts", hes really getting into it, and embracing its twofold effect - relief, but also "damage", "slipping away", "fading away" and, most importantly being killed in a "considerate" way. This "considerately" adverb is the most subtle lyrical nuance, because it describes the experience of writing in a way that is as precise as it can get. Act of writing could be described as "considerate death": slow, gradual and cyclical dieing off. All these layers of meaning are present in H.'s lyrics - we are learning this experience is repeating itself (note the frequency of use and emphasis the singer puts on the word AGAIN), we are finding out it is enduring "days away". It is "touching", and "changing", and "killing" the poet. No need to say, erotic parallel is very obvious. Art as a substitute for love, and works of art as metaphors for children, these two analogies have been ever present in reflections about art. Power of Maynard's lyrics is that he manages to merge these layers and symbols together in inseparable unity. It is paradoxical - giving a birth is also killing you. It is THAT experience that the song is trying to convey. If you ever wrote anything you will know it - you are giving a birth, you are creating something, and yet, you cant help but feel something has been lost and part of you just died. Creation and destruction happen at the same time.
So, the song goes on, we have the instrumental bridge/interlude section, as the music is shifting the dramatic tension and preparing a scenery for another confrontation. Then lyrics go on to show this "poet" at the actual moment of giving in and succumbing to his temptation. Hes not only naked, but even more than that - hes "without a skin", and also "beneath the storm", the same "storm" that was caused by this internal collision and conflict between these BEHIND and BEFORE forces... Maynard now gives another brilliantly accurate definition of his creative process when he says hes "under these tears". In the upper verse he mentioned a "snake that sings a songs" and that is "looking up to turn" his "piss to wine". He now shows how his anger (btw, the emotion that carried Tool throughout most of the Undertow album, before getting into more cathartic and emotionally varied Aenima and so much more cleansed and elevating Lateralus), by this giving in, is being turned into tears and confessional desperation. Hes basically taking his words quite litereally, as any good poet should, and hes setting a scenery where hes about to physically confront his embodied fears, where storm and tears are being used as actual phenomina, and tears are being perceived as rain. Anyways, "the walls come down", as hes able to "look in the eyes" of his enemy/lover, inspiration/killer, and that is when his "fear begins to fade" as he realizes he "could" and "should have cried" each and every time in the past, when he obviously didnt have the courage to do it (crying is not cowardish, it takes courage, you know:)). So, now, as hes brave enough, he first looks in the snake's eyes and "drowns" it with his tears, and then he looks in the eyes of this famous and impersonal YOU (thats the "as i look in your eyes" lyric - in any case, it is the same YOU as the one from the chorus, the one that hes "connected to", and that is "considerately killing" him). Dramatic tension is reaching its high, as this poet is now speaking directly to the subject of the song, hes no longer depicting his passive condition in the absence, where he was only tempted by some "voice", but now hes taking action and facing his fear and making it "fade", despite being aware, despite "recalling" (its a cycle remember!) the fact that he has already "died" in his previous encounters with this temptation, and despite knowing that he "will die" again. Now, just like any artist at the state when he can no longer hold emotions in him, he "doesnt mind", and gives in for yet another and possibly final time. Chorus reprise follows, and this fatal and fetal connection is being re-established, touching and changing and eventual considerate killing, it all happens once again, as the song itself - obviously a result of the very same process in Maynard's soul - comes to its end as well. It equally gives a feeling of quieting death rattle and descending orgasm - death and love embrace...
So, that is my interpretation, according to the lyrics that i have, and the feeling i get from the music... However, i have to showcase an important contradiction in my interpretation (but it could be Maynard's oversight too, cause i really feel like i can sense where hes coming from and whats his aim with this song): this symbol of snake first appears as something that is "singing songs", and then it appears as something that "hisses" what "damage" could happen if the poet "opens up" his "heart again" (i.e. if he writes a poem or sings a song). I see this as contradiction ("whats singing songs is a snake" as opposed to "snake behind me hisses, what my damage could have been"), and be it my interpretation's inadequacy or Maynard's oversight, it does make things a little bit problematic. Other than that, im pretty sure hes singing about "singing songs", and about how it has both therapeutic and lethal effect on his soul. Half-full/half-empty.
Its been told that this song is about drugs, and it has also been denied by that famous "half full/half empty" explanation. I think song could be interpreted in that way, as some sort of self-exploration related to drug experiences, but it doesnt hold up as firmly as interpretation i can give, and Maynard himself allegedly told the song was not about drugs. Also, title of this song has been related to Maynard's son's middle name, and while it is an impressive and unexpected hint, the rest of the lyrics just cant keep together. So, i dont really think this song is about Maynard getting a child.
Ill now try to give "my own interpretation", and ill try to clear some things up in regards to symbols used in this song. First of all, i accept half-empty/half full explanation. To me, this song cant be about Maynard's actual child, but it can only be about certain spiritual and emotional state that has something to do with different sort of "children", and different sort of birth.
As soon as i got into the lyrics for this song i had little doubt that this song was about writing songs, about art, about creative act. I felt Maynard was trying to depict the conflict poet feels while being torn by simultaneous desire to give in to his emotions and to restrain from doing so, being aware of the damage confessional act might cause. Thats why he says these too forces are "killing" him "just the same", even though theyre "both totally void of hate". Up to this point hes in passive and powerless situation and he only accentuates the same dilemma in the next verse. "Snake BEHIND me" (as a force that is preventing him from "giving a birth", or writing a song, or succumbing to his emotions) and "blood BEFORE me" (as a creative, inspirational force that is teasing him to "open up" his "heart again") are colliding and producing this half-full/half-empty condition that is "coming over like a storm". In the next sequence the song is taking a direction towards solving this conflict. Both music and lyrics get some sense of gradation and ascending. The verse goes like this : "venomous voice tempts me, drains me... drags me down like some sweet GRAVITY". The poet (well, Maynard, but its not actually Maynard, because art is never about real person's privacy but about artist's intimacy) is being slowly dragged into this temptation and hes getting closer to giving in and letting his emotions explode. At that point comes the first chorus. This "poet" is giving in, hes establishing a contact, a "connection" with this fatal, impersonal force that is being depicted as "blood before me" (some physiological impulse so to speak), as "venomous voice" that "tempts", hes really getting into it, and embracing its twofold effect - relief, but also "damage", "slipping away", "fading away" and, most importantly being killed in a "considerate" way. This "considerately" adverb is the most subtle lyrical nuance, because it describes the experience of writing in a way that is as precise as it can get. Act of writing could be described as "considerate death": slow, gradual and cyclical dieing off. All these layers of meaning are present in H.'s lyrics - we are learning this experience is repeating itself (note the frequency of use and emphasis the singer puts on the word AGAIN), we are finding out it is enduring "days away". It is "touching", and "changing", and "killing" the poet. No need to say, erotic parallel is very obvious. Art as a substitute for love, and works of art as metaphors for children, these two analogies have been ever present in reflections about art. Power of Maynard's lyrics is that he manages to merge these layers and symbols together in inseparable unity. It is paradoxical - giving a birth is also killing you. It is THAT experience that the song is trying to convey. If you ever wrote anything you will know it - you are giving a birth, you are creating something, and yet, you cant help but feel something has been lost and part of you just died. Creation and destruction happen at the same time.
So, the song goes on, we have the instrumental bridge/interlude section, as the music is shifting the dramatic tension and preparing a scenery for another confrontation. Then lyrics go on to show this "poet" at the actual moment of giving in and succumbing to his temptation. Hes not only naked, but even more than that - hes "without a skin", and also "beneath the storm", the same "storm" that was caused by this internal collision and conflict between these BEHIND and BEFORE forces... Maynard now gives another brilliantly accurate definition of his creative process when he says hes "under these tears". In the upper verse he mentioned a "snake that sings a songs" and that is "looking up to turn" his "piss to wine". He now shows how his anger (btw, the emotion that carried Tool throughout most of the Undertow album, before getting into more cathartic and emotionally varied Aenima and so much more cleansed and elevating Lateralus), by this giving in, is being turned into tears and confessional desperation. Hes basically taking his words quite litereally, as any good poet should, and hes setting a scenery where hes about to physically confront his embodied fears, where storm and tears are being used as actual phenomina, and tears are being perceived as rain. Anyways, "the walls come down", as hes able to "look in the eyes" of his enemy/lover, inspiration/killer, and that is when his "fear begins to fade" as he realizes he "could" and "should have cried" each and every time in the past, when he obviously didnt have the courage to do it (crying is not cowardish, it takes courage, you know:)). So, now, as hes brave enough, he first looks in the snake's eyes and "drowns" it with his tears, and then he looks in the eyes of this famous and impersonal YOU (thats the "as i look in your eyes" lyric - in any case, it is the same YOU as the one from the chorus, the one that hes "connected to", and that is "considerately killing" him). Dramatic tension is reaching its high, as this poet is now speaking directly to the subject of the song, hes no longer depicting his passive condition in the absence, where he was only tempted by some "voice", but now hes taking action and facing his fear and making it "fade", despite being aware, despite "recalling" (its a cycle remember!) the fact that he has already "died" in his previous encounters with this temptation, and despite knowing that he "will die" again. Now, just like any artist at the state when he can no longer hold emotions in him, he "doesnt mind", and gives in for yet another and possibly final time. Chorus reprise follows, and this fatal and fetal connection is being re-established, touching and changing and eventual considerate killing, it all happens once again, as the song itself - obviously a result of the very same process in Maynard's soul - comes to its end as well. It equally gives a feeling of quieting death rattle and descending orgasm - death and love embrace...
So, that is my interpretation, according to the lyrics that i have, and the feeling i get from the music... However, i have to showcase an important contradiction in my interpretation (but it could be Maynard's oversight too, cause i really feel like i can sense where hes coming from and whats his aim with this song): this symbol of snake first appears as something that is "singing songs", and then it appears as something that "hisses" what "damage" could happen if the poet "opens up" his "heart again" (i.e. if he writes a poem or sings a song). I see this as contradiction ("whats singing songs is a snake" as opposed to "snake behind me hisses, what my damage could have been"), and be it my interpretation's inadequacy or Maynard's oversight, it does make things a little bit problematic. Other than that, im pretty sure hes singing about "singing songs", and about how it has both therapeutic and lethal effect on his soul. Half-full/half-empty.