June 19, 2019
Romantic Poets and Jinjer’s “Pisces”: Meaning, Duality, and the Human Tragedy
Hell, what a title, huh? Only a madman like myself could find a connection between Romantic poets and a modern band like Jinjer. But before we talk about Jinjer’s “Pisces”, meaning, duality, and the human tragedy, there’s something you need to know about Romantic poets.
They were bad-ass motherfuckers.
They were obviously the rock stars of their day – including drug use – in that they talked about things nobody else dared to. Romantic poets, in general, had the personal integrity to express what they believed. As a result of this integrity, they also often shared another characteristic.
They were tormented souls.
Perhaps it feels confusing to you to hear that. Can a bad-ass really be a frail, introvert creature, haunted and often misunderstood by society?
That’s what we’ll be talking about today. Drawing from Romantic poets such as William Blake as well as a song by a modern band, Jinjer’s “Pisces”, meaning, duality, and the tragedy of human existence will come full circle.
Jinjer’s “Pisces”: Meaning in the Time of Mediocrity
Before we take another step, it’s important to bring the song to the foreground. Later on I will do the same with William Blake.
If you are familiar with Jinjer’s “Pisces”, meaning and duality must be something you can relate to – in the sense that you probably have a clue where I’m getting at. Feel free to listen to this masterpiece once more, though!
If you are not familiar with the song, sit back, relax, and listen to the end. Then do take as much time as you need to wonder what the hell just happened, and come back to hear all about it.
Click to display the embedded YouTube video
OK, so you’re back.
All good?
Now, let’s talk about it.
What you just experienced is a 5-minute symbolic condensation of the core tragic element of the human experience. Poets (indeed, William Blake himself), artists, and philosophers have spent countless words and images describing the two interconnected pieces of the human tragedy:
- Our existence is a constant battle between opposing forces.
- Vast numbers of humans, to avoid facing this battle, impose their constructed viewpoints on others.
Jinjer’s “Pisces”: Meaning of Lyrics
First of all, a disclaimer. As I have mentioned many times before, meaning can never be objective and it can never be the artist’s prerogative.
In other words, the following is not “the” interpretation, only “an” interpretation.
Taking a quick look at the lyrics of Jinjer’s “Pisces”, meaning seems to revolve around the concepts of power, duality, and exploitation.
Step forward and meet a new sunrise
Jinjer, “Pisces”
A coward is shivering inside
Today I’ll be a friend of mine who swallows
Suffering with smile
I drew a different reality
With unconditional loyalty
Ego hardly can be piqued ’cause I’m selfless
As you noticed from the song, the verse is sung with clean vocals. Indeed, one could call the vocalist’s style sensitive, fragile, and introvert. It’s almost as if you can detect some timidness there.
Needless to say, this is in perfect balance with the lyrical themes so far.
Things change in the verse, both in terms of lyrics and vocal style.
Scale armour beliesSome sources claim the word here is "blaze".
Jinjer, “Pisces”
Virgin innocence
One being brings life
Another runs for death
Scale armour belies
Virgin innocence
One being brings life
Another runs for death
The theme of duality pervades the song. “Scale armour belies”… “virgin innocence”. Whereas “one being brings life”, “another runs for death”.
Obviously, you can find many different metaphors related to power structures there. The latter pair in particular (“one being brings life”, “another runs for death”) is hard not to associate with gender.
But regardless of any specifics, it all resolves through the prism of duality, power, and exploitation. The conclusion of the song is tellingly revealing.
Pisces swimming through the river
Jinjer, “Pisces”
All their life against the stream
Searching for a hook to catch on
And see their sun beam
Then suffocate in painful tortures
On cutting tables of callous men
Under a knife of handsome butchers emeralds are ripped away
As I said, this is the tragedy of the human experience condensed. For what is human history if not a long series of frail, sensitive, beautiful creatures that swim “against the stream” (against insufferable mediocrity), “searching for a hook to catch on” (naively being fooled by those promising a “sun beam”), only to end up “on cutting tables of callous men”, where “under a knife of handsome (!) butchers emeralds are ripped away” (this really requires no explanation).
“Pisces”, Duality, and Hegelian Dialectics
In Jinjer’s “Pisces”, meaning heavily revolves around duality – which the masterful vocals reaffirm – particularly hinting at the duality of human existence.
Humans have to deal with forms of duality every moment of every hour. Our entire existence revolves around oppositions. Can there be life without death? Can there be beauty without ugliness?
More importantly, can there be a way to resolve such predicaments? Hegel approached the issue from a synthetic perspective, incorporating thesis and antithesis into something new. The details go beyond the scope of this post, but feel free to take a look at my article on Neo-Hegelianism and the meaning of the Absolute.
Ultimately, everyone has to deal with opposing forces (might one not think of them as an ocean wave, coming and going?) but the tragedy lies in how those who try to face them are treated by those who don’t. This is how I interpret Jinjer’s “Pisces”.
Perhaps a pessimistic view, certainly different from William Blake’s outlook.
William Blake’s The Marriage of Heaven and Hell
One of the most important Romantic poets, William Blake, approaches such issues from a more optimistic perspective.
In Blake’s The Marriage of Heaven and Hell (the title should give you a clear idea about what I just said), the author indeed embraces these oppositions, in the sense that, as he sees it, they should be precisely considered equal parts of being human.
Just in case you haven’t yet fathomed how bad-ass a feat it was to write this book, let me remind you that Blake wrote The Marriage of Heaven and Hell – in which he basically uses Satan as a role model for reason – in the late 18th century. Though not exactly a time where you could get burned as a witch, the political connotations (at the time of the French Revolution) and the concepts of revolt, anti-conservatism, and, well, duality, were all very volatile ingredients.
There is a delightful collection of “hellish proverbs” in the short volume – which, parenthetically, is free to read online – and most of them sound like what our world would need more of today.
In seed time learn, in harvest teach, in winter enjoy.
William Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell
Drive your cart and your plow over the bones of the dead.
The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom.
Prudence is a rich ugly old maid courted by Incapacity.
He who desires but acts not, breeds pestilence.
How delightfully refreshing for our time, a time full of (hurt) feelings instead of facts, a time brimming with “friends”!
As I mentioned further above, Blake – as a typical Romantic poet – seems to be more optimistic about the opposing forces surrounding the human experience. Indeed, at a certain part of The Marriage of Heaven and Hell he suggests that “truth can never be told so as to be understood, and not be believ’d.”
I’m not entirely convinced this is the case today.
What Can We Learn from Blake and Jinjer’s “Pisces”: Meaning and Human Duality Today
Of course the word “today” just above is misleading. There is no “today” with timeless things, and the concepts presented in this post are definitely timeless.
What differs from one epoch to another are the manifestations of these concepts, together with approaches and reflections depending on the cultural momentum.
For Blake and the Romantics in general, there seemed to be no limit to enlightenment. If anything, it almost felt like an inevitable consequence.
Indeed, although Matthew Arnold wrote his essay on poetry several decades later, a similar spirit of optimism seems to be infused in terms of human thought becoming liberated.
The future of poetry is immense, because in poetry, where it is worthy of its high destinies, our race, as time goes on, will find an ever surer and surer stay …
This prediction remains unfulfilled in our time, which seems to be a time of stupidity, simple-mindedness, and self-deception. It’s also a time (like every time preceding it) of “Pisces swimming through the river/ All their life against the stream”.
To be a bad-ass is not to be a loudmouth bully. To be a bad-ass is to have the integrity and personal freedom to express yourself regardless of the consequences.
Perhaps it’s time we stopped thinking we should find “a hook to catch on”.
Perhaps it’s time we started focusing on our swimming instead. For what else is there?
28 Comments
Comments are closed for posts older than 90 days
Lyrics for the chorus should read “Scale armour belies virgin innocence”.
Thanks for the comment. I’m pretty sure “Scale armour blaze” is the correct version. That’s what I hear myself and it’s far more prevalent in every online source I’ve checked. Also notice in the video, at 1:30, how the vocalist spreads her fingers when singing “blaze” – that’s not consistent with “belies”, but it is with “blaze”. Syntactically, “scale armour” can be read as a modifier of “blaze” (that is, blaze created by scale armour). Alternatively, they can be read as separate: scale armour; blaze (that is, scale armour and blaze). To be absolutely fair, it’s not unthinkable that “belies” is at least grammatically and semantically possible, but I still think “blaze” seems more appropriate. FWIW, either option is consistent with the topic of duality. Thanks again for your input.EDIT: I have changed my mind on this issue. I now think belies is a likelier interpretation.
I agree that it should be “belies”. Blaze, to me, makes very little sense. If you look at that one line on its own, perhaps it does… but the entire thought is the first *two* lines. “Scale armor blaze” might make sense, but then just a whole sentence of “Virgin innocence”? Not so much. But “Scale armor belies virgin innocence,” is a very complete, cogent, and powerful thought, very much in line with the song’s theme.
Also, the cadence of Tatiana’s speech and singing doesn’t tend to include words stretched into multiple syllables like that. To me, after hundreds of listens, it’s clearly “be-LIES”, where if it were blaze, it would be kind of… “buh-LAIZE”. Which even spelled as closely to ‘blaze’ as the sound allows, kind of looks and sounds more like ‘belies’ anyway. Her diction is *excellent*, bordering on impeccable, even in her growls, so for her to modify and badly mispronounce one of the most critical words in the song seems… unlikely.
You tube has a lyric video and the chorus begins ,scale amor belies.its hard to understand with her amazing growl.such a beautiful woman as well
If you look up Tatyana’s birth date, she’s a Piscese 😉
Didn’t know that, interesting!
There is also a duality between the first and second verses.
I hear the story of a sturgeon ending with eggs ripped out for caviar.
I think the lyric is “Belies” for the following reasons…
My interpretation is that it’s a song about a young innocent girl who looks tough,worldly-wise and confident on the outside, but is an innocent virgin, shivering and suffering on the inside.
She’s trying to make her way in the world and succeed, and is faking it until she makes it, but she doesn’t know who to trust.
Life is hard for her and she’s swimming through life trying to find that one hook that will give her what she wants, but there are a lot of handsome, callous men who will rip away her treasures!
A symbol of duality, the ying yang, is also a symbol of union (the union of opposites). Just as a fish lives a life of peace and tranquility mixed with moments of fear, aggression, terror and tragedy so too do we humans. Within the duality of Pisces we also find shared universal emotions between creatures of all species.
Interesting comment, thanks for sharing.
Tatiana and Eugene themselves said, that line in the chorus is “scale armor blaze”. The original post was correct.
I tend to favor (linguistically at least) “belies”. I’ve seen both versions mentioned, and there’s a footnote referring to there being two opinions on the matter. In the end, it’s really not crucial. Thanks for your comment!
Oh, sorry, I didn’t specify Tatiana is the vocalist and main lyricist in Jinjer, and Eugene is the bassist, manager and sometimes he writes lyrics as well. They wrote the lyrics for this song together (mainly Tatiana). I get it, that “bellies” may sound better linguistically, but still, it is “blaze” what they wrote. As you discussed in your original post, scale armor blaze makes perfect sense too, and I think the lyrics sound a lot more poetic that way.
And thank you for this analysis BTW, it was a real pleasure to read it. As English is not my main language, it is really difficult for me to decipher most poems. I really appreciate blogs like yours.
Here is the link to the Tatiana and Eugene facebook QnA video, if links are allowed: https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=748917495868742&ref=watch_permalink
They talk about it from 50:35, just in case someone is interested.
Thanks for your message and additional info. And glad to hear you’ve found the blog useful 🙂
I’d be interested in a combination of your interpretation and an ethnomusicologist. There are many poetic comparisons since duality is a subject that is often written about. I ran across your blog by accident, but it has been a pleasant experience.
Thanks for your comment, glad to hear you’ve found the blog useful 🙂
I found it very useful. Please doing this kind of content. I’m really motivated to build my own blog. I will use ghost.js and gatsby I gues.
Hi there! Upon reading a random comment somewhere stating a connection between Jinjer’s “Pisces” and William Blake, a quick search landed me here.
Regarding the facts, it’s undoubtedly “Scale armour blaze!”. A commenter already gave you a link to a video where they stated that but, anyway, here is another proof: the physical album’s booklet. So “belies” constitutes a factually incorrect version of the poem.
https://www.discogs.com/es/release/8904065-Jinjer-King-Of-Everything/image/SW1hZ2U6NDI0NDgwMzc=
Now, while agreeing to an extent with your analisys, I expected it to be somewhat different. I guess I had high expectations because of the title of your entry, since of course “Pisces” and romantic poets share this common ground: the dominance of passions over reason! The conflict between passion/reason is the DUALITY that brings TRAGEDY to humans: reason is not enough to get metaphysical MEANING, understanding metaphysics as a quest to find an ultimate purpose of existence… Human is a metaphysical animal.
Maybe I digress a little, but it’s tied with what you state (which I agree with): “Meaning can never be objective and it can never be the artist’s prerogative.” So far that’s OK, I agree… but then the usually common wrong conclusion appears: “the following is not ‘the’ interpretation, only ‘an’ interpretation.” There aren’t just interpretations: there are some more befitting than others… I’ll elaborate.
Of course the meaning can’t be the artist’s prerogative, but what was intended with statements along those lines (Roland Barthes, for example) was that the Piece of Art (poem, film, whatever) is the one that “speaks for itself” (conveys meaning ) without the “aid” of external narratives: it was aimed at the author’s “help” mainly (when not at certain critics/curators). The conclusion stating “there are just interpretations” allows for a misrepresentation of that previous rightfully made concept (“a piece of Art speaks by itself”) and subverts the whole idea: now the meaning is put into the public side!
The meaning doesn’t lie neither in the public, nor in the author: it lies in the piece itself alone (and its creation context, of course!). How much of that meaning is decipherable depends on the artist’s skills and the public it is aimed to; hence the quite recurring idea of comparing a Piece of Art with a riddle: an author being the riddler, the public being the one to solve it. At best, what interpretations do (the good ones) is to help with “hints”, as long as they are right there in the piece itself (and not some other place, like the author’s biography or claims).
Well, now let’s get into the lyrics. You state that their meaning “seems to revolve around the concepts of power, duality, and exploitation” and that “regardless of any specifics, it all resolves through the prism of duality, power and exploitation”. And I spot a flaw there: if looked through the prism of duality, power structures and exploitation, whatever to be found will be related to them. To be clear, my issue is not with those concepts, but with the approach itself: the use of a prism to get meaning.
For example, if we take in isolation “one being, brings life, another runs for death”, of course it can be easily associated with gender. But in the context of the lyrics, that association should be weighted and contrasted against any other possible association. The internal coherence of the poem must be the first and most important guide at the moment of distinguishing if certain association is main/relevant regarding meaning or if it is just accesory/irrelevant: does it provide full meaning or not? I do see how power and exploitation can be gathered from the lyrics, but those appear as ornamentation: attachments that work like deceptions, so fitting in apparience, yet they are irrelevant… Remember: a good riddle should trick us into wrong anwers too!
Of the ones you mention (power, duality, and exploitation), I see duality as the relevant one, but not a as a concept itself: it isn’t just a mere prism to look through; it is a mean of conveying an underlying, bigger idea that brings meaning (I have given a glimpse of that in the third paragraph).
Let’s see what can be gathered in an attempt of a less subjective analysis, one built-up and shaped by every bit of information that the very poem throws at us (bottom-up), instead of a more subjective analysis where our preconceived ideas may be shaping a meaning beforehand, way ahead of what the poem, in its own sequence, actually tells us (top-down).
“Step forward and meet a new sunrise”
↳ A step towards a new sunrise: it meets with «what’s to come», *the future*.
“A coward is shivering inside”
↳ We are suggested that it’s *the future* what causes those shivers inside a coward, but who is that coward? Plus, the remark of cowardice as a feature may be hinting that there are non-cowards out there.
“Today I’ll be a friend of mine
Who swallows suffering with smile”
↳ We are hinted that narrator’s «faking» (suffering disguised as joy) isn’t *a feature of hers* (not a regular, not an everyday) because of the remark that it will happen this *very time* (today). However, who is «that friend» (whose behaviour of «faking» belongs to): an *inside and symbolic other-self*, or another *outside and concrete real being*?
—————————————–
“I drew a different reality”
↳ That different reality would seem to be that «faking» from earlier…
“With unconditional loyalty”
↳ … taken from that “friend of mine”…
“Ego hardly can be piqued
‘Cause I’m selfless”
↳ … that we still don’t know if it’s an *inside and symbolic other-self*, or an *outside and concrete real being*: It could be the former, the latter, or even both (*duality* regarding *ambiguity*: two readings can be gathered).
—————————————–
“Scale armour blaze!”
↳ Since the title «Pisces» means *fish*, let’s assume: how do fish’s scales shine? Through *sunlight reflection*…
“Virgin innocence”
↳ … which is portrayed here like a *symbol* of the most pure form of innocence: the primordial one, virginal.
“One being brings life
Another runs for death”
↳ From the previous *duality* regarding *ambiguity* (*inside and symbolic other-self/outside and concrete real being*) now we are given *duality* regarding *opposing aspects*: *life/death*.
—————————————–
“Scale armour blaze!”
↳ The shining on fish’s scales needs the sunlight to happen…
“Virgin innocence”
↳ … so fish need to be close enough to the surface to be lit-up. But that situation…
“One being brings life
Another runs for death”
↳ … could expose them to being taken from the water, hence death. On the other hand, those fish that avoid nearing the surface do survive, hence life.
—————————————–
“No promises I ever give”
↳ A promise is all about *what’s to come*. It comprises a conditional: if X, then Y. The ‘if part’ being *condition*, and the ‘then part’ being *consequence*. Narrator is remarking that whatever is stated doesn’t constitute a conditional…
“Don’t rely on me and I won’t deceive”
↳ … and once again, we aren’t able to tell if that distrust is focused on the ‘if part’ (*condition*) or the ‘then part’ (*consequence*)…
“The beginning or the end you can’t tell”
↳ … which constitutes another *duality* regarding *ambiguity*…
“When I wave my fin and shake my tail”
↳ … while our narrator is revealed to us as under the characterisation of a fish.
—————————————–
“I grew in different normality”
↳ If that normality where narrator grew is different, it means two possibilities:
– narrator is unchanged: always different from others, hence narrator’s normality is the others’ non-normality → *different* if compared with «others’» normality
– narrator actually changed: formerly like the others, hence narrator’s normality was the same of them → *different* if compared with «narrator’s present» normality
Again, *duality* regarding *ambiguity*…
“With unblamable morality”
↳ … and with just three words, we are given to think that those *consequences* (originated from narrator’s «normality», in both previous possible senses) weren’t helpful or rewarding, because of how prompt she is to exonerate from blame those principles that shaped that «normality» in the first place.
“Hooks and nets are there for me”
↳ That previously mentioned situation (that could expose the fish to its demise) is now explicitly revealed to us: how dangerous is to get near the surface…
“But I’m skittish”
↳ … yet, we are given the impression that it is actually… a desired fate (instead of something to be avoided), something that narrator is doubtful about to accomplish. Why?
—————————————–
“Scale armour blaze!”
↳ Are some of the fish trying to reach sunbeams…? Oh!, yes they are! Which suggests that…
“Virgin innocence”
↳ … some fish’ longing is to be able to *directly experience* (see) the sun.
“One being brings life
Another runs for death”
↳ Some of them don’t dare to try, and «live»; some of them reach to see the sun, and «die» in the process: *duality* regarding «opposing aspects» (*life/death*) takes place between «these two types» of *outside and concrete real beings*.
—————————————–
“Scale armour blaze!”
↳ Besides «meeting (their) sunrise», fish are also «meeting» an increased grasp of the sense of future, and they acknowledge (their own) unavoidable death within it…
“Virgin innocence”
↳ … all while in searching for what’s beyond their own reality where they live in: a struggle to discover that by their own!
“One being brings life
Another runs for death”
↳ The fearful enough ones «live» (‘unaware of death’, ‘ignorant’), the inquisitive enough ones «die» (they become ‘aware of death’, ‘enlightened’): *duality* regarding «opposing aspects» (*life/death*) takes place between «these two types» of *inside and symbolic other-selves*.
—————————————–
“A Neptune’s child shivering inside”
↳ This fish, afraid of what lies beyond its known reality (the only one known, the only one where it lives in)…
“Drowns in the liquid gold”
↳ …doesn’t dare to fullfill its longing (experience the sun) and remains on the verge, unfit («drowns») in the sunlit water…
“Cherished his life to the underworld”
↳ … and regrets having this longing, by cherishing its previous life in deeper waters (ignorant about the sun). See how beautifully «liquid gold» paints that sense of frontier between the «underworld» and «the sun»: *ignorance* and *enlightment*. We are suggested that this fish can’t go back to the «underworld» because its longing doesn’t allow for that: the road from *ignorance* to *enlightment* can’t be backtracked!
“Meet me flashing when winter cries”
↳ However, we are instructed by our fish-narrator, when at the end of her life («winter») and death hour («cries»), to meet and recognize her by her «flashing» (her own «scale armour blaze»): we are beautifully revealed that she will not follow *that previously described path* (of staying and «drowning in the liquid gold»). Simultaneously, we are revealed the denouement about the *duality* regarding «opposing aspects» (*life/death*) that took place between «these two types» of *inside and symbolic other-selves* (the struggle between ‘the fearful one’, ‘unaware of death’, *ignorant* versus ‘the inquisitive one’, ‘aware of death’, *enlightened*): the latter will prevail, her *enlightened self* will impose over her *ignorant self* in the end.
—————————————–
“Pisces swimming through the river
All their life against the stream”
↳ The Heraclitus’ River all over here! It could have been a lake, or a sea, yet it was a river 😉 Life as a futile struggle against *impermanence*!
“Searching for a hook to catch on
And see their sun beam”
↳ Plato’s allegory of the cave, in a nutshell: the struggle to discover reality on one’s own.
We already know that not all of the fish go this route: there are the cowards that “shiver and drown in the liquid gold”, for some of them don’t dare to experience the sun and they remain in the sunlit water («liquid gold») all their life. An equivalent of remaining inside Plato’s cave.
Instead, narrator is talking here about those *like her*: the ones that dare to pursuit their inquisitive quest, the ones that «search for a hook to catch on and see their sun beam», the ones that «swim all their life against the stream»…
“Then suffocate in painful tortures
On cutting tables of callous men
Under a knife of handsome butchers
Emeralds are ripped away”
↳ … only to find the innherent tragic nature of such a quest, where the ugly truth is revealed later on and can’t be reversed: what’s learnt, can’t be un-learnt.
Notice the idea of *ignorance is bliss* → *knowledge is pain* («painful tortures») where a continuum is sketched:
– *a bigger order degree* (of knowledge) → *more pain* («cutting tables of *callous* men» → they *plan* (‘act in advance’), they *dictate*, they *know more*, they ’cause’ more pain
– *a smaller order degree* (of knowledge) → *less pain* («under a knife of *handsome* butchers» → they execute (‘act in present’), they *obey*, they *know less*, they ’cause’ less pain
Since «scales armour» represents «virgin innocence», it’s easy to see that «emeralds are ripped away» translates to «innocence is ripped away», which is none other than plain, concrete death: remember, if «virgin innocence» is a complete unawareness about death, and the increasing notion/grasp/acknowledge of death is a path where innocence is progressively lost, then the ultimate loss is the total form of knowledge: *experiencing* death!
To summarise: narrator depicts the human tragedy, starting from her own; the further into the knowledge, the further it brings the notion of own finitude, and that is the main conflict: different realities are built upon different orders of knowledge, which in turn involves different levels of dealing with death. From start to finish, duality as ambiguity mirrors duality as struggle, wich results in another duality itself: could it be more beautifully symmetric and recursive this poem?
Well, that’s all. No matter how much we could agree/disagree, the most important thing is this: I find very interesting this entry; it’s an oddity to find this kind of content elsewhere, and I’m glad I ended up here 🙂
P.S.: I don’t know how much you’re familiar with other metal music, but if you dare to delve into more “extreme metal”, you’re going to have very fun and joyful times: I can suggest an awful lot of music pieces whose lyrics bear such a high-quality, that they alone would grant them a place in literature… I can’t resist naming some: Ideomotor (The Agonist), Valence (Be’lakor), Therein (Dark Tranquillity), Blank Infinity (Epica), Mortal Share (Insomnium), Labyrinth Of London (Swallow The Sun), Pale Tortured Blue (Draconian)… and I leave it at that.
Many thanks for this well thought-out comment!
really enjoyed to read the comments , it opened another layer for myself. if you study the lyrics and then go to a good description of the sign of pisces which represents life and death (two fish bound together) it all gets crystal clear . as a piscean myself these lyrics can not be understood , they are the expirience that is lived trough everyday by those born as neptunes children.
so it kind of amuses me how hard some here try to “think” about the lyrics while they discribe an expirience not a thought. i promise : if you study the zodiac sign of pisces you will understand the lyrics, but the feeling to be one might still be a riddle . its unthinkable it needs to be felt . we merge with everyone but are always on our own , we have no boundaries . we are all and nothing at the same time. the symbol( the vesica pisces ) is a good starting point to explore the feeling via form for those born under that sign. we want to connect on the physical plane but the feel that we are slowly dying because we are resting not swimming . we need to move constantly like water thats why she sings that we search a net …an slip through it when we found it . pisces is mutable water …it is movement , we love the feeling of resting but then we feel caught in it . we lose ourselves in other just to find us in them . some astrologers refer to the sign of pisces as the cosmic mirror – and i think thats quite an accurate description . selfless – what the mirror shows you is not the mirror its your own reflection . like the third door in michael endes – nerverending story . the door that mirrors back to you what you do not want to look at inside of you.
the men that do not FEEL us are our butchers ..handsome . but if we escape the handsome butcher alive we learned just another facette of our scales .
thank you for your thoughts hope i could share some inspiration with you .
be blessed and greetings from germany
Many thanks for your comment 🙂
I’m a pisces too, and I found both your comparison and the author’s interpretation both beautiful. Funnily enough, my first encounter with the song was a random suggestion from youtube, and the “hook” for me was the unique sound of that alluring yet melancholy melody, but I stayed after the growls. By comparision, is not the simple action of listening to the song itself its own similar journey? The beautiful juxtaposition of being enticed by this mysterious harmony to be hooked after listening to the gutteral refrain to realize “yeah, this is where I want to be.” I find it all to be a wonderful experience.
Thanks to the author and everyone who commented. Lets all keep swimming together.
Many thanks for your comment and your kind words. 🙂
In the part where she angrily belts out “virgin innocence”, I do not believe it is coincidence that it sounds so similar to “virgin in a sense”. I think this adds to the message being presented.
“Scale armor blaze” : this speaks of the Pisces swimming near the surface to let their sun shine off the scales which looks beautiful but may bring upon you, your death. When predators or fishermen see the fishes scale reflecting the sunlight, the fish has become a prey.
“Virgin Innocence” (or virgin, in a sense) : The fish, or life that’s represented in the lyrics has had their virginity taken away by the predators that surround them as a result of being beautiful (scale armor blaze) not as a result of choice.
“One being brings life” : pregnancy as a result of rape. This leads to the new life of Pisces and therefore the duality of life and death, good and bad perpetuates.
“One being brings death” : Capture or consumption by a predator or fisherman. You have no choice, all options lead to something you didn’t want.
Interesting insights, intriguing and well argued. Thanks for sharing them!
I feel as if she wrote this song while fishing. Fish- scale armor.
Fish – coming to the light from the deep water, Fish- Virginia innocence from being caught on the hook.
Liquid Gold- The water is known as liquid gold because it presents wealth to fishermen.
One brings life – fish bring life to us.
Running from death- fish trying to escape.
I guess you see where I’m going with this.
Jinjer rocks.
There are indeed a vast number of perfectly plausible interpretations – a sign of artistry, I’d add.
Many thanks for your comment.