Thanks Issac, Iceage, and everyone else who talked about the chorus. Real good stuff. I'm kind of suprised that I never really equated the whispering hands part with death, and I'm not sure I totally agree with it, but it defintiely works

I also forgot to mention my approval of the subversive 'never vote republican' subliminal message. Not exactly subtle, but sometimes that's okay

now this is news to me... huh?!

I forgot about how good the original was. Looking forward to more stip.

Great reviews so far. Though I think you got a little side tracked in Even Flow with this comment "(exacerbated by the 12 years of Reagan/Bush that Ten is coming out of)". Homelessness is a bi-partisan issue and most likely should be much more a state responsibility than a federal one. Can you name the California and Washington state governors at the time Even Flow was written?

I always thought the whole chorus was about how a mentally ill person feels while trying to be helped by outreach workers. The whole feeling of words and actions taking place all aroung but without understanding only knwoing it's leading to him/her being moved. Displaying a near complete lack of attachment with the world which is then contrasted with the whole "I died" bit at the end. Placing the responsibility to care with those with an attachment and realization of the world around them. I needed help, you saw I needed help, you walked away, you lost your chance to be human.

I mentioned the Regan bush thing since during those years record numbers of people were thrown out of mental hospitals and many of these people became homeless

But was that actually a Reagan/Bush doing? Do mental hospitals fall under federal jurisdiction in the states?

Where I live we experience the same problems but the mental health hospitals all fall under provincial/state jurisdiction. Social housing is also largely a non-federal issue, they just don't have the power to address it. Social housing is to a large part a local level of government issue as tehy are the ones most capabl eof providing the land and adjusting the zoning laws to facilitate high density social housing. My guess is that the US is very close to this, please correct me if I'm wrong. That's why I think pointing an accusing finger at Reagan and Bush is off target and it's why I asked if you knew who the governors of California and Washington state were. I'm all for righteous indignatio and anger but I try to make sure it's pointed at the correct target.

The precipitous rise in general homelessness and homelessness as a result of untreated mental illness can be directly traced to the Reagan Administration. While states and municipalities have always been responsible for overseeing funds directed at low-income housing and mental health facilities, the Federal Government, as a result of policies championed by Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter accounted for a large proportion of the funds necessary to staff, run and subsidize these programs. The Reagan Administration cut the funding for these programs by more than 50% with the admonition to cities and states to come up with "community based" programs. These of course failed to materialize as there were no funds.

Both Bush I and Clinton made attempts ameliorate the resulting situation, and actually made some inroads despite the dire budget situation of the late 80's and early 90's with a noticeable improvement by the time of the 2000 Presidential election. You can imagine what has been happening since then.

I'm sorry but that's a lot of buck passing by state and municipal governments. Any time the feds cut funding for a program the state is always free to allocate any lost funding from either new or existing revenue streams. Homelissness crisis happened because those with the responsibility and accountability for it didn't give a damn and didn't want to "waste" their state and municipal tax dollars on it.

People in general didn't, and to a large extent still don't, care about the homeless. Blaming the level of government with the least ability and responsibility to address the issue just comes across as sophmoric. This constant search for who to blame other than those given the responsibility for the issue seems odd, especially when it usually seems that the republican party is found to blame regardless of the leaps in logic required.

You didn't read my post carefully. Republican administrations prior to the Reagan administration were just as eager to beat poverty and homelessness in the second half of the 20th century as Democratic ones. Only the Reagan Administration and the current Administration have not cared about it.

Making up "lost revenue streams" through municipal reallocation is not a solution as municipalities are generally overextended anyway. Introduction of "new" revenue is essential. This is the reason Federal Taxes exist at all, so the Federal Government with its wide-ranging oversight powers can accommodate these needs. It is not a cop-out to say that the Federal Government must play some role in meeting the needs of the most helpless among us.

Who says municipal and states are overtended. Hell, there's states I believe without any personal income taxes. Canada went through the same thing and unfortunately it took our state and municipal levels of governments about 10-15 years to figure out, gee if we're not getting the funding from the feds we better raise the funds ourselves. Why should that have taken them 10-15 years, it's common sense. If your employer reduced your wages by 50% would you wait 10-15 years to react, let's hope not.
As far as I understand the division of powers between federal, state and municipal levels of government that the feds actually have the smallest role in meeting the needs of those most helpless among us.
It's our money that goes to all levels of government. It really doesn't matter to me which level of government funds a program because it's still our money funding it. Playing the blame game between levels of government is really us just absolving ourselves of blame for being too cheap to fund the cause, because after all it is really only us funding it. We vote in the governments at all levels that reflect our priorities. We gladly bought Reaganomics without buying the much needed higher state and municipal taxation that rightly belonged with it. We got cheap, I will not blame the feds for that. Every individual tax payer was free to use his federal tax savings and donate it to the homeless issue to solve the funding problem, but by far the majority chose not you.

I like Ten except for the shitty-ass production.

I don't think that you are understanding the magnitude of what happened during those years, as a direct result of the Reagan budgets. No matter how large and prosperous a city might be, the loss of 20 to 25% of its total operating budget, almost overnight, is not something that can be remedied on the spot. We are talking about casting aside programs for which there had once been universal bipartisan agreement. Individuals donating food to a food bank cannot make up for this. There are things that only a large well-organized agency can accomplish. You may want to eradicate polio, and you may be willing to spend every penny you have on accomplishing this, but you, as an individual, do not have the resources to do this. The same thing is true of poverty.

The Director of the Office of the Management and Budget during Reagan's first term, David Stockman, wrote a book about this. It is called "The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed." This man was a conservative Repulican and continued to be even at the time this book was written. It is a harrowing story.

great threads beget great dialogue

I’m going to be completely honest here. Stip (and some others here, but mainly Stip), you just managed to make me appreciate Once, especially Even Flow and maybe Ten in its entirety more.

as a political scientist, all this talk about federalism is turning me on a little bit

Alive

Alive and Release are the two most critical tracks on the record, as they are the two moments that really offer a cautious hope of redemption, although in both cases it is a shadowy hope—a hint that things might be better in the future because they can’t be much worse now. It is not a coincidence that both of these songs deal with same event, one of the most intimate forms of betrayal possible. While Why Go is also about getting messed up by your parents it is much easier to digest because of the anger. There is a break, even if it isn’t necessarily clean. In Alive there is no break and because there is no break there is no chance to start over. The need for this kind of space has always been a major theme in Eddie’s lyrics (getting in a car and driving away, climbing a tree, finding water). In all these cases there is no time for healing until you’ve removed yourself from the harm). In Alive the singer finds that everything he took for granted about his world is a lie, but that the people involved in the lie expect him to go on like everything is okay—the words have been spoken and now it is time to suck it up and move on, while staying right here.

But I’m getting a little ahead of myself. As a caveat I want to say that I do not think Alive is a song about incest, and if it is, it isn’t a very good one and the song succeeds in spite of that story, rather than because of it. Personally I think Eddie wrote the song about himself and added that story to it later to create some distance between it and him—to make it a little less intimate and revealing. Even if he had that incest frame in mind when he was writing it it was always secondary.

The opening guitar riff to once is dirty and distracting—it is meant to convey the mad pounding in the singer’s brain, the inability to focus. Alive is exactly the opposite. It is crisp, clear, and defiant. It is a statement of purpose, of solidarity and strength (and is probably my favorite riff of all time). And the music and the vocal delivery (this song is one of Eddie’s real masterpieces in terms of the vocals—every line is given exactly the right inflection—his confusion, the off handed diffidence of his mother filtered through his own shock and anger, the strength and possibilities of the chorus) together are what anchor alive. It is what gives the song its hope. The lyrics are dark and lifeless and offer little in terms of salvation. The riff is redemptive. If Alive was sung by Conner Oberest (bright eyes) the entire song would be spend wallowing in self-pity and existential crisis—and he wouldn’t necessarily be wrong. It’s a legitimate choice given the subject matter. But the clarity of the music and the strength in Eddie’s voice offer a crucial juxtaposition to the story being told. We don’t know based on the story being told if the singer will make it out okay (in fact we have reason to bet that he wouldn’t), but the music and delivery tell us otherwise

I love the casual, off handed way the song begins. Son, have I got a little story for you. And then the mother proceeds to demolish the foundations of the singers universe—the fact that this happens to him when he is just beginning his teenage years makes it worse, as he is at the point in time when we are just beginning to construct adult identities for ourselves and nothing in life is solid. At that moment the one thing he thought he could rely on, the truth of his family, is taken away from him. And moving beyond just finding out that he was adopted, he knows too that one of the people who created him is dead—lost to him forever. But, as his mother reminds him, shit happens. Try not to worry about it. And she is relieved. It is like finishing your first conversation with your child about sex. It is as much for your benefit (if not moreso) than theirs. One thing you can cross off your parental to-do list.

The second verse is a little troubling since I reject the incest interpretation. I picture this as his mother crossing the room to attempt to cover him, with him dumbfounded by the whole thing. But it’s not enough. A few quick words of comfort can’t make this go away. Yeah, he’s alive, life goes on, but in some meaningful way it is now all a lie. It needs to be rebuilt, and he doesn’t know how to do it or who to go to for answers (the who answers question is especially poignant given the way the album ends, with Eddie in the dark talking to his dead father, waiting for answers that will never come)

And that is what is going on with the insistent declaration in the chorus. Everything else is a lie, but at least he is still alive. He never comes out and tells us what to make of this (he rarely did in the early records—if indifference was written today he would tell us that it makes a difference instead of leaving it to the listener). He could be alive and have nothing. He could be alive and paralyzed, trapped and uncertain where to go from here. Once points to another possibility. But it is clear both from the music and from the power in his vocals that he is alive and defiant. That this is something he will rise above. He is alive, and ready to begin again.

And with that declaration Mike’s solo kicks in, which I still think is the most emotionally moving guitar solo of all time, and arguably the most powerful piece of music I’ve ever heard. Through it he lets out all the anger, frustration, trepidation and fear that the singer feels and through it he finds the strength needed to continue. It conveys so much without ever saying a word beyond some of Eddie’s wordless vocal coloring (something I wish he would go back to). It reminds us that he is alive, and that he is going to be okay.

Alive is an extremely personal song, and one that few of us can (hopefully) relate to in any direct sense. But we don’t have to relate directly. Alive is for anyone who has ever been violated (emotionally or physically) by those closest to us and reminds us that we can and will survive it, that as long as we’re alive we’ll survive to love and trust again.

I agree that the beginning of the guitar solo and Ed's yeah yeah yeah's might be one of the most moving sections of popular song.

Hello,

There is another version of Alive, the one from the Alive promotional release.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~groenf/images/ali ... 041_cd.jpg

The solo is slightly different from the album version. Solo is in 3:39.
http://download.yousendit.com/D3BA95AB4B340F3B

And I remember I read about the McCready's solo, it was a rendition of the KISS' solo of She. Solo is in 3:40.
http://download.yousendit.com/57B278415B1C57AD

I think McCready improved the solo, his is awesome.

The remix version of Rearviewmirror, it's remixed by Brendan O'Brien, right? I think, it's just cleaner than the album version.

seeya

'And with that declaration Mike’s solo kicks in, which I still think is the most emotionally moving guitar solo of all time, and arguably the most powerful piece of music I’ve ever heard." Amen, brother.

Interesting take on Alive, Stip.

I would agree that the "truth" of the song is Eddie's experience, but based on the lyrical content I think he was deliberately trying to work an incest angle in there, and that it's not just a story he invented later to distance himself. Instead, it's the story he invented to distance himself when writing the lyrics. Same difference, ultimately.

as i said in some earlier comments, i always find it hard to separate what these songs meant 15 years ago vs. what they mean to me now. I think you're right that, when written, Alive had power not because it was a song many people could relate to specifically, but because as you said it's a song for "anyone who has ever been violated (emotionally or physically) by those closest to us." I think it speaks to the greatness of the song that it even transcends that - relatively broad - category now.

Alive has become THE Pearl Jam song. Yes, you've got Even Flow and Black and Jeremy and Last Kiss and Betterman and all the other hits that everyone knows., but Alive is the song that sums up the band. It not only documents their past but tells the story of who they are as a band today. The song still has a personal immediacy, if you need it to - the lyrics aren't going to change, so that's not going away. But the song also speaks to the band and the fanbase as a whole now, too. That incredible emotional release of Mike's solo which once highlighted the individual will to triumph over adversity, is now equally about our (the band's, the fans') triumph over the years as well.

Much as I loved this band back in the early 90s, it never would have seemed possible that they (and I, and we) would all still be here today. Bands that seemed far more stable were self destructing all over the place - I remember marking each new experience (another live show, another album, a new single) as special because it didn't seem any of this was going to last. Then just when they seemed to be sorted out and rolling, Roskilde happened, and all was turmoil again.

All of that collective history is now as much a part of Alive (at least to me) as the story of the lyrics. When it's played live it is always, always the emotional high point of the show - it's the time when everyone comes together to marvel that after 17 years we're still here. It's always a beautiful moment.