A Matter of Life and Death Dissection
- Thread starter nuno_c
- Start date
Brave New Pilgrim
What not to do if your bird sh#$% on you....
That's one of the thing I love about pretty much all reunion-era Maiden. It's not dumbed down. Maiden, like many of their listeners, seem to have evolved more complex tastes as the years have rolled on. Simply put, they've grown with their fans. I think that's one of the reasons why reunion-era Maiden is so highly regarded.
22 The Avenue
Nomad
This is exactly how I feel. It's not bad, it's just not among the best either. I also feel that it never "takes off". The dark, somber tone of every song just doesn't excite me as much as other albums have. It's "too serious".
Part 2
For the Greater Good of God - Something about this makes me feel it's Steve's answer to Paschendale from the previous album, a song I believe to be a perfect song, each stanza and each note adding to the atmospheric blend that makes it a true masterpiece - and in my opinion, the greatest Iron Maiden song. For the Greater Good of God uses the exact same methods to create atmosphere. The slow, dark sounds of the album, the dragged out repetition, the slow introductions and exit, all are designed by Steve to tell a story.
Obviously, the title gives us the hint that this is going to be about religion, but the words "greater good" in the title tell us the type of subversive nature that will be used in the language of the song. "The greater good" is a phrase famous to anyone who has pondered ethics, and we are all aware that it is a trap. The greater good is an idea that cannot be served. In addition, if you subscribe to Jehovan mythologies, you should be aware that God requires no greater good. God is the greater good in those religions. Suggesting one is acting for the greater good of God is to deliberately suggest actions that subvert that God's supposed word. Already the title feeds deeply into the counter-religious themes previously introduced.
Our introduction to this song immediately confirms what the title tells us about the nature. "Are you a man of peace/or a man of holy war/Too many sides to you/Don't know which anymore." Steve brings us to the viewpoint of a particular believer who is confused about the statements of conflict made. It reminds me of Pope Urban's proclamation that the 10 Commandments only prevented the killing of Christians - an artificial and illogical distinction that certainly didn't exist when God provided Moses the Commandments - assuming you believe in such a thing.
Steve then launches us immediately into questioning the viewpoint character's religion, not just the actions of the person to whom that person is questioning. "So many full of life/but also filled with pain/Don't know how many/Will live to breathe again." In Christian mythology, those worthy will live again after the end of the world (Revelations, the book, not the song from Piece of Mind). It's like the viewpoint character is questioning if he does not know those who die are dying in the service of the religion for which they perish.
We are treated to more analyses of this information. "A life that's made to breathe/Destruction or defense/A mind that's vain corruption/Bad or good intent?/A wolf in sheep's clothing/Or saintly or sinner/Or some that would believe/A holy war winner." We are very rapidly drawing comparisons here. The first part is that life is made to breathe - that we are born to live, but immediately, there are decisions being made - to destroy that life, to protect it. Who is making the call? The vain ones, regardless of their intent. We then string this into the comparison in the second half of the verse - a wolf in sheep's clothing is a dangerous infiltrator, someone who appears harmless but is actually a savage beast - and they then add three comparisons to this person - a saint, a sinner, and a glorious general. Are these all the same? Are they supposed to be all the same?
Steve now takes this from the personal, to the broader. One person, in the soft introduction, was questioning the behaviours of his faith's leaders. Now we are given a stronger, but darker, tempo, a heavier song, and greater considerations. "They fire off many shots and many parting blows/Their actions beyond a reason, only god would know/And as he lies in heaven, or could it be in hell/I feel he's somewhere here or looking from below." They. Their. Two words that indicate now we aren't dealing with one leader, not a Pope Urban or a particular violent imam. We're dealing with more, perhaps all. Steve then uses their own imagery against them - only god would know, but is he in heaven, in hell? But the next line, Steve rules out heaven. He uses this religious words against them. somewhere here or looking from below. God doesn't walk on earth - he's in heaven, usually referred to as up. Satan is below. What he is saying here is that these religious leaders that demand violence - they are either ruled by the Devil, or by themselves, not by the actual God in heaven. It would have been easy for the line to go I feel he's somewhere up there or down below and have it work, but Steve specifically chose to exclude heaven as a possible source of the God that might comprehend the action of these violent religious types.
Let's look at the bridge here. I think this is the best part of the song. "Please tell me now what life is/Please tell me now what love is/Well tell me now what war is/Again tell me what life is." Imagine these being said to a violent preacher. What is life? What is love? You can almost hear the skepticism in the next part - Bruce sings this so wonderfully - someone saying, "Well then, in that case, what's war? What's the point of it?" And then after the preacher gives the violent answer, demands the death of the infidel, the person says again, "Tell me again - what's life?" It's beautiful. It makes the succinct point that preachers who call for violence against the teachings of their own faith are violating their own faith egregiously.
In the next verse, Steve goes deeper than just addressing religious leaders. Now the attack is on religion itself. "More pain and misery in the history of mankind/Sometimes it feels more like the blind leading the blind/It brings upon us famine, death and war/You know religion has a lot to answer for." There's certainly a case that religion is the leading cause of violent death in human history - especially if you include the tens of millions that died during exposure to European evangelicals during the colonial era, and the use of peoples failing to possess a "civilized religion" as a justification for slavery and genocide. Doesn't seem to be anything to analyze here: Steve is listing out religion's sin's.
The next verse is really neat, and poetic, in a way people don't often give Steve credit for. "And as they search to find the bodies in the sand/They'll find it's ashes that are scattered across the land/And as the spirits seem to whistle on the wind/A shot is fired somewhere, another war begins." This is all gorgeous metaphor. It's all about religion using past events as an excuse for future horrors. They are looking for hidden bodies to hold up, but in this case, the obscuring sand are ashes from the destruction religion has brought. But even as the spirits of those horrors speak to us - as they whistle on the wind, a faint noise obscured by the cries of new preachers, another war begins and is justified. It's a horrific circle.
Finally, Steve laments that we cannot seem to stop this circle of violence. "And all because of it you'd think that we would learn/But still the body count, the city fires burn/Somewhere there's someone dying in a foreign land/Meanwhile the world is crying, stupidity of man." What's interesting is that Steve hasn't said a thing about religion itself being bad, merely that it has been used for bad things. Yet he is certainly speaking in a counter-religious manner. Not much to say here, except that such was written before the rise of ISIS - almost prophetic.
So I said before that everything here makes sense, and why the repetition is so important to the song. This song is very unique in Iron Maiden's catalogue because unlike so many other reflections on current events it doesn't offer a solution. This is a lament to the way things are, and the way things always will be, and a strong repeated chorus - a warning, a mourning - is almost important. Each time Bruce says "For the greater good of god" he is trying to expose the hypocrisy of these people who use religion as a crutch to kill; he is mourning the countless dead; he is warning those who might die in the future.
The final bit is a simple final lament. The sacrifice of Jesus is supposed to be sacred to end sin. But the worst sins continue, and are perpetrated by the holder of Christ's legend. Tell me why...tell me why...
Lord of Light - This is probably the most blatant counter-religious song. As Bruce specifically said, it was written to tell the tale of the existence of Satan from the eyes of Lucifer. Someone recently suggested this makes the song Satanist, but I am not entirely sure that it is. I think it's a clever song that relies on two possible interpretations intentionally - one is that Lucifer got boned by God, and the other is the unreliable narrator aspect. I tend to lean towards the latter, because the storytelling here directly counters what we learned in the Bible. I'm only going to touch on these aspects of the song - if you can't figure out the basic parts of this song on your own, then I can't help you.
We know from the Bible that God cast out Lucifer because of his desire to be superior to God - his lust for mortal things, for strength, beauty, wealth and power. But in this song, consider a few neat lyrics. "Lucifer was just an angel left astray." "Free your soul and let it fly/Mine was caught, I couldn't try." "We are cast out by our bloody father's hand/We are strangers in this lonely promised land/We are shadows of the one unholy ghost/In our nightmare world the only one we trust." These directly contradict what we are told in the Bible, which makes us think the narrators aren't necessarily honest.
Wait, did I just say narrators? I sure as hell did! Why? Go analyze the lyrics again. Lucifer/Satan isn't the person speaking. They say "We" a lot, but never "I". Why? This isn't really being told by Satan at all - but instead is being told by the legions of fallen angels expelled by God, who worship Satan now. Neat little thing. Who is telling the truth? Do they know what Lucifer did? Or do they just listen to the Lord of Light and follow mindlessly?
Interesting commentary on religion in general, if you ask me. Lots of layers to this song when you start peeling the bits back.
The Legacy - The final track of this album doesn't really seem to have a lot to do with counter-religious themes when you look at the surface, but it does when you consider the question the song asks. The song is asking us about the legacy of those who commit great evils, especially in the name of the greater good (where have we heard that phrase before on this album?)
There are some direct references to the content of For the Greater Good of God on the track. "You lie in your death bed now/But what did you bring to the table/Brought us only holy sin/Utter trust is a deadly thing." Holy sin obviously refers to murder in this case - the killings prohibited by the Commandments. Pretty close to For the Greater Good of God, eh?
But in general this track is more about the consequences of one person's actions, a person who is in great power. It could be the person for whom questions were asked previously, but this song only links back to that theme from time to time, using religious iconography as a suggested negative "Your prophecies will send us all to hell as well". Still, we can feel fairly sure they are hammering the point home.
Conclusion. While this is not a concept album where each song tells part of the story, it is an album with interesting strings that pull together most songs in a common, if broad, theme. With five songs that directly address religious counterculture of 10 and 2 more that can be nicely linked, I think we are showing a clear pattern here. Why? I don't know. It could have been something on the minds of all the bandmembers when it came it. Maybe Steve had For the Greater Good of God written already and it inspired some similar themes in other tracks when the boys heard it. But this is an album with a strong undercurrent, a unifying theme that makes the dark and deep sounds of the album worthwhile.
Comments, questions, and refutations are all welcome.
For the Greater Good of God - Something about this makes me feel it's Steve's answer to Paschendale from the previous album, a song I believe to be a perfect song, each stanza and each note adding to the atmospheric blend that makes it a true masterpiece - and in my opinion, the greatest Iron Maiden song. For the Greater Good of God uses the exact same methods to create atmosphere. The slow, dark sounds of the album, the dragged out repetition, the slow introductions and exit, all are designed by Steve to tell a story.
Obviously, the title gives us the hint that this is going to be about religion, but the words "greater good" in the title tell us the type of subversive nature that will be used in the language of the song. "The greater good" is a phrase famous to anyone who has pondered ethics, and we are all aware that it is a trap. The greater good is an idea that cannot be served. In addition, if you subscribe to Jehovan mythologies, you should be aware that God requires no greater good. God is the greater good in those religions. Suggesting one is acting for the greater good of God is to deliberately suggest actions that subvert that God's supposed word. Already the title feeds deeply into the counter-religious themes previously introduced.
Our introduction to this song immediately confirms what the title tells us about the nature. "Are you a man of peace/or a man of holy war/Too many sides to you/Don't know which anymore." Steve brings us to the viewpoint of a particular believer who is confused about the statements of conflict made. It reminds me of Pope Urban's proclamation that the 10 Commandments only prevented the killing of Christians - an artificial and illogical distinction that certainly didn't exist when God provided Moses the Commandments - assuming you believe in such a thing.
Steve then launches us immediately into questioning the viewpoint character's religion, not just the actions of the person to whom that person is questioning. "So many full of life/but also filled with pain/Don't know how many/Will live to breathe again." In Christian mythology, those worthy will live again after the end of the world (Revelations, the book, not the song from Piece of Mind). It's like the viewpoint character is questioning if he does not know those who die are dying in the service of the religion for which they perish.
We are treated to more analyses of this information. "A life that's made to breathe/Destruction or defense/A mind that's vain corruption/Bad or good intent?/A wolf in sheep's clothing/Or saintly or sinner/Or some that would believe/A holy war winner." We are very rapidly drawing comparisons here. The first part is that life is made to breathe - that we are born to live, but immediately, there are decisions being made - to destroy that life, to protect it. Who is making the call? The vain ones, regardless of their intent. We then string this into the comparison in the second half of the verse - a wolf in sheep's clothing is a dangerous infiltrator, someone who appears harmless but is actually a savage beast - and they then add three comparisons to this person - a saint, a sinner, and a glorious general. Are these all the same? Are they supposed to be all the same?
Steve now takes this from the personal, to the broader. One person, in the soft introduction, was questioning the behaviours of his faith's leaders. Now we are given a stronger, but darker, tempo, a heavier song, and greater considerations. "They fire off many shots and many parting blows/Their actions beyond a reason, only god would know/And as he lies in heaven, or could it be in hell/I feel he's somewhere here or looking from below." They. Their. Two words that indicate now we aren't dealing with one leader, not a Pope Urban or a particular violent imam. We're dealing with more, perhaps all. Steve then uses their own imagery against them - only god would know, but is he in heaven, in hell? But the next line, Steve rules out heaven. He uses this religious words against them. somewhere here or looking from below. God doesn't walk on earth - he's in heaven, usually referred to as up. Satan is below. What he is saying here is that these religious leaders that demand violence - they are either ruled by the Devil, or by themselves, not by the actual God in heaven. It would have been easy for the line to go I feel he's somewhere up there or down below and have it work, but Steve specifically chose to exclude heaven as a possible source of the God that might comprehend the action of these violent religious types.
Let's look at the bridge here. I think this is the best part of the song. "Please tell me now what life is/Please tell me now what love is/Well tell me now what war is/Again tell me what life is." Imagine these being said to a violent preacher. What is life? What is love? You can almost hear the skepticism in the next part - Bruce sings this so wonderfully - someone saying, "Well then, in that case, what's war? What's the point of it?" And then after the preacher gives the violent answer, demands the death of the infidel, the person says again, "Tell me again - what's life?" It's beautiful. It makes the succinct point that preachers who call for violence against the teachings of their own faith are violating their own faith egregiously.
In the next verse, Steve goes deeper than just addressing religious leaders. Now the attack is on religion itself. "More pain and misery in the history of mankind/Sometimes it feels more like the blind leading the blind/It brings upon us famine, death and war/You know religion has a lot to answer for." There's certainly a case that religion is the leading cause of violent death in human history - especially if you include the tens of millions that died during exposure to European evangelicals during the colonial era, and the use of peoples failing to possess a "civilized religion" as a justification for slavery and genocide. Doesn't seem to be anything to analyze here: Steve is listing out religion's sin's.
The next verse is really neat, and poetic, in a way people don't often give Steve credit for. "And as they search to find the bodies in the sand/They'll find it's ashes that are scattered across the land/And as the spirits seem to whistle on the wind/A shot is fired somewhere, another war begins." This is all gorgeous metaphor. It's all about religion using past events as an excuse for future horrors. They are looking for hidden bodies to hold up, but in this case, the obscuring sand are ashes from the destruction religion has brought. But even as the spirits of those horrors speak to us - as they whistle on the wind, a faint noise obscured by the cries of new preachers, another war begins and is justified. It's a horrific circle.
Finally, Steve laments that we cannot seem to stop this circle of violence. "And all because of it you'd think that we would learn/But still the body count, the city fires burn/Somewhere there's someone dying in a foreign land/Meanwhile the world is crying, stupidity of man." What's interesting is that Steve hasn't said a thing about religion itself being bad, merely that it has been used for bad things. Yet he is certainly speaking in a counter-religious manner. Not much to say here, except that such was written before the rise of ISIS - almost prophetic.
So I said before that everything here makes sense, and why the repetition is so important to the song. This song is very unique in Iron Maiden's catalogue because unlike so many other reflections on current events it doesn't offer a solution. This is a lament to the way things are, and the way things always will be, and a strong repeated chorus - a warning, a mourning - is almost important. Each time Bruce says "For the greater good of god" he is trying to expose the hypocrisy of these people who use religion as a crutch to kill; he is mourning the countless dead; he is warning those who might die in the future.
The final bit is a simple final lament. The sacrifice of Jesus is supposed to be sacred to end sin. But the worst sins continue, and are perpetrated by the holder of Christ's legend. Tell me why...tell me why...
Lord of Light - This is probably the most blatant counter-religious song. As Bruce specifically said, it was written to tell the tale of the existence of Satan from the eyes of Lucifer. Someone recently suggested this makes the song Satanist, but I am not entirely sure that it is. I think it's a clever song that relies on two possible interpretations intentionally - one is that Lucifer got boned by God, and the other is the unreliable narrator aspect. I tend to lean towards the latter, because the storytelling here directly counters what we learned in the Bible. I'm only going to touch on these aspects of the song - if you can't figure out the basic parts of this song on your own, then I can't help you.
We know from the Bible that God cast out Lucifer because of his desire to be superior to God - his lust for mortal things, for strength, beauty, wealth and power. But in this song, consider a few neat lyrics. "Lucifer was just an angel left astray." "Free your soul and let it fly/Mine was caught, I couldn't try." "We are cast out by our bloody father's hand/We are strangers in this lonely promised land/We are shadows of the one unholy ghost/In our nightmare world the only one we trust." These directly contradict what we are told in the Bible, which makes us think the narrators aren't necessarily honest.
Wait, did I just say narrators? I sure as hell did! Why? Go analyze the lyrics again. Lucifer/Satan isn't the person speaking. They say "We" a lot, but never "I". Why? This isn't really being told by Satan at all - but instead is being told by the legions of fallen angels expelled by God, who worship Satan now. Neat little thing. Who is telling the truth? Do they know what Lucifer did? Or do they just listen to the Lord of Light and follow mindlessly?
Interesting commentary on religion in general, if you ask me. Lots of layers to this song when you start peeling the bits back.
The Legacy - The final track of this album doesn't really seem to have a lot to do with counter-religious themes when you look at the surface, but it does when you consider the question the song asks. The song is asking us about the legacy of those who commit great evils, especially in the name of the greater good (where have we heard that phrase before on this album?)
There are some direct references to the content of For the Greater Good of God on the track. "You lie in your death bed now/But what did you bring to the table/Brought us only holy sin/Utter trust is a deadly thing." Holy sin obviously refers to murder in this case - the killings prohibited by the Commandments. Pretty close to For the Greater Good of God, eh?
But in general this track is more about the consequences of one person's actions, a person who is in great power. It could be the person for whom questions were asked previously, but this song only links back to that theme from time to time, using religious iconography as a suggested negative "Your prophecies will send us all to hell as well". Still, we can feel fairly sure they are hammering the point home.
Conclusion. While this is not a concept album where each song tells part of the story, it is an album with interesting strings that pull together most songs in a common, if broad, theme. With five songs that directly address religious counterculture of 10 and 2 more that can be nicely linked, I think we are showing a clear pattern here. Why? I don't know. It could have been something on the minds of all the bandmembers when it came it. Maybe Steve had For the Greater Good of God written already and it inspired some similar themes in other tracks when the boys heard it. But this is an album with a strong undercurrent, a unifying theme that makes the dark and deep sounds of the album worthwhile.
Comments, questions, and refutations are all welcome.
Lempface
The Guide
Enjoyed both segments LC, and I appreciate the effort you put into the analysis. My favorite track is also For the Greater Good of God, and it made me smile to see your admiration for it. It seems to get a lot of (unwarranted) flak.
The comment on the Lord of Light being from the vantage of the legion of fallen angels and their unreliability really opened another perspective for me.
Thanks again!
The comment on the Lord of Light being from the vantage of the legion of fallen angels and their unreliability really opened another perspective for me.
Thanks again!
Last edited:
I think a possible interpretation of "Lord of Light" is that both God and Lucifer may be in the wrong, that the duality of "heaven" and "hell" is fundamentally false, a prison imposed on the souls of mankind that keeps them from finding freedom.
While the narrator has rebelled against the what he perceives as the tyranny of heaven ("cast out by our bloody father's hand"), he does not seem to have found any salvation or enlightenment from "the one unholy ghost" either. He knows that he has not freed his soul - "mine was caught, I couldn't try" - he remains trapped in a place where "we gather demons in the mirror every day", while "time returns again to punish all of us".
The narrator knows that we need to move beyond these old conflicts ("revenge is living in the past / time to look into a new millenium"), but he cannot find the way out. "I can't reach things I can't see" - but this does not mean that than nobody can, for "you don't see this strange world quite the same as me".
Perhaps the light is not to be found with either God or Lucifer, neither in heaven nor in hell. The light could be something else entirely.
Step into the light, startripping...
Ranko
I'll shoot the gunner first!
@LooseCannon - Truly great and deep analysis, I'm impressed.
I remember you saying that you'll do an in-depth analysis of Isle of Avalon (you did one for Starblind), how 'bout tackling that one next?
I remember you saying that you'll do an in-depth analysis of Isle of Avalon (you did one for Starblind), how 'bout tackling that one next?
Consumer Of Souls
Trooper
This is what I think of AMOLAD as well. Their best reunion album for me, and maybe even the best ever, it's close between AMOLAD and SSOASS for me..... but guess what?
Book of Souls was in fact pretty damn incredible, and it's already up there, maybe their best album ever for me. And that's no hyperbole, that's real talk.
Perhaps I will.I remember you saying that you'll do an in-depth analysis of Isle of Avalon (you did one for Starblind), how 'bout tackling that one next?