leonardcohenforum.com

Posted: **Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:12 pm**

I just wanted to drop in and mention my (old) impression that this song is one of Cohen's more surrealistic. I think that surrealistic images are rarely in his writing (I may be wrong since I now speak without elaboration; let's mention Recent Songs - there's maybe some kind of surrealism, but it's more like symbolistic, mystical, closer to Rummi or Khalil Gibran that Garcia Lorca). The only song I can think of that uses series of surrealistic images (what's, i.e., usual approach of Bob Dylan, from early albums to Modern Times) is Take This Waltz, and that one is of course adaptation of Lorca's poem. Changes of poetical images in Take This Waltz, images which aren't logically or naratively connected like the images in other Cohen's songs (i.e. Democracy, where we have surrealistic image from time to time, but it's not used as structural approach to songwriting). The same is with One Of Us Cannot Be Wrong, where each stanza brings new surrealistic bridge to another motif. And here's of course the title who additionaly confirms this - as many critics observed, one of few Cohen's title which is not drawn from song lines. So I'd say that title is (as usual in poetry) the shortest description of theme, or the key for song's interpretation. As these point of views (or love beggars) change in each stanza - one of us cannot be wrong; one of them has actually guess the way to gain her love (or the love). But I get the impression that there the problem actually lies - the "I" for first stanza isn't actually sure which one of them/us has find the way (not realising that himself) so he keeps repeating, or he again goes thru all approaches and points of view, trying to understand which one got it. (And maybe missed that he got it, because in the end he cries "Oh please let me come into the storm".)

Also, of interest: instead of "them" which I just used, Cohen says in title "us". In song the doctor, saint and Eskimo are obviously third persons (maybe even intruders into his love, because his love for her apparently moves from him to doctor in 2nd stanza (what brings in mind "but you who come between them, you will be judged.") So in title he's taking all involved males as equal.

Posted: **Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:33 pm**

I’ll elaborate just a little about what I said earlier. I think that the imagery of tortured love was a very central theme of LC at the time, as we can see in many of his songs.

1. One Of Us Cannot Be Wrong and Master Song
Apart from the theme of tortured love there is in these songs a theme very popular in the 1960’s, and that is the whole business of gurus and masters who were supposed to lead you to spiritual enlightenment (the Beatles and the Maharishi are the most famous example). LC seems to regard them with suspicion (that was before he met Roshi). The saint in the first song, and the master in the other are very much alike. The song “Teachers” is also somewhat of the same genre (and there and here we also have the doctors). There is even some very similar imagery: “Then I took the dust… and I put it in your littler shoe”; versus “And your love is some dust in an old man’s cuff”.

What he seems to be saying is: leave all those idiots who are trying to confuse you and come to me, for heavens’ sake. Yes, well, I know it may be a little more sophisticated than that, and there is so much more that can be said about the imagery and emotions, but one can’t do it all at once.

2. Cold, snow, ice, storm

One Of Us Cannot Be Wrong: “An Eskimo…shivering, his lips and his fingers were blue…your blizzard of ice, Oh please let me come into the storm”.

Master Song: “Before your master chose instead, to make my bed of snow… your knuckles are red…”.

Winter Lady: “I lived with a child of snow…”.

Avalanche: “I stepped into an avalanche…”.

It’s cold also in “Lady Midnight”, “The Butcher” etc…

After Greece, he must have felt very cold back in America, if we want to be very prosaic. Basically, of course, it’s an emotional state.

And finally, look up, if you haven't yet, some variations in live performances at the “Diamonds in the Line” site, such as: “our sad honeymoon” or “An Eskimo showed me his filthy (dirty) movie”.

Posted: **Thu Dec 07, 2006 4:53 pm**

About the Eskimo, In 1967, the same year Songs of Leonard Cohen came out, The National Film Board of Canada released a very extensive serie of documentaries on the Nutsilik Inuit. Other such series had also been released before that. Those series have marked the imagination of thousands of Canadians as they provided a very intimate look at the daily life of those people. Maybe the image of the Eskimo came from one of those films and is used here, surrealistically, as Tom mentioned, to the stress the idea of frost and cold.

Netsilik Inuit serie >>>

Posted: **Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:10 pm**

Just to add, DB Cohen, that in live performances (I think also on Cohen Live) it's indeed new adjective there - usually "our shabby honeymoon". And an article of interest for Master Song: Judith Fitzgerald's 2002 Master Song analysis: http://www.leonardcohenfiles.com/jfmaster.html (she recently was here as "Alexis").

Interesting addition: the filthy movie. I guess that would explain much. And beside, what other kind of home movie would your lover's another lover make? Surely not how they two eat ice cream in the cafe.

Posted: **Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:17 pm**

Now I realised that ~greg's extensive writing about One Of Us cannot Be Wrong in light of Bob Dylan's song of similar title and similar motifs in his work at the period is not in this thread. Also, about the song being writen in Chelsea Hotel with Nico in mind, and also recent discovery that Edgie Sedgwick lighted candles in her room, and that she burned the room down despite Cohen's warning. I think that ~greg then connected the two songs thru Sedgwick as possible love interest for both of them also.

Posted: **Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:30 pm**

viewtopic.php?p=73862#73862

Tom Sakic wrote:
Vauxhall wrote:I was under the impression that only "Take This Longing" was about Nico.
Take This Longing and Joan Of Arc... But recently the partial recording of Isle of Wight appeared, where LC introduces One Of Us Cannot Be Wrong with allsuions and references which he usually used about Nico (in few shows he introduced those songs as songs about tallest, blond girl from Nazi poster he couldn't have...). But I may be wrong about One Of Us..., last week there was an article in which we learned that LC was also in Edie Sedgwick room in Chelsea Hotel and that she burned candles... What reminded me on first line of One Of Us Cannot Be Wrong.

~greg wrote:...just some random thoughts, ... (-- gossip ...)

The Stone's "19th Nervous Breakdown"
and Dylan's "Just Like A Woman" were about Edie Sedgwick.

(That is to say, I have read this enough different times enough
different places that it must be true.)

And it's also almost certainly true that many of the songs
on "Blond On Blond" were more or less about Edie.

(Except obviously not "Sad Eyed Lady of The Low Lands",
(although it was once said to be) - because Dylan on "Sara"
on "Desire" says explicitly that he was
"Stayin' up for days in the Chelsea Hotel,
Writin' "Sad-Eyed Lady of the Lowlands" for you." - ie, -Sara.)

And I don't know, but I don't think there's any doubt that the title itself
---Blond on Blond --- meant Nico and Edie.
(Sara of course wasn't blond.)

And then there's that curiously titled song,
"One Of Us Must Know (Sooner or Later)" on Blond On Blond,
- which obviously inspired Cohen's title: "One Of Us Cannot Be Wrong,"
- (which song, maybe, has to do with Edie and|or Nico, too)

Dylan had a relationship with Edie. I think it was basically a kindred-spirit
brother-sister kind of thing. She is described in many places, and I just
want to point out that she was a talented artist (--she could draw
a very realistic looking squirrel, for example,) and she was small and frail.
As a matter of fact she was approximately exactly the same physique
as Bob Dylan himself at the time. So I think they were basically good buddies.

Nico was different. Tall and cold.
And Sara was warm and earthy. And Dylan married Sara.
(Which would have been my choice too.)

After just seeing still photographs of Edie or Nico
people have said that they just don't get it. But from what I've
read and seen of them on film here and there,
they were both very intriguing, high-quality dames.
(Apart from being totally fucked-up, of course.)

The song "4th Time Around" on Blond On Blond
starts out with:
"When she said,
'Don't waste your words, they're just lies,'
I cried, she was deaf. "

- and that might have meant Nico. I don't know.
In any case her partial-deafness had an effect on how she sang.

"She sings like a tone deaf, transexual, German horse."
someone said ( http://cacophonyandcoffee.blogspot.com/ ... r-lot.html )
(--at least he didn't say "like a German trout"

But I wouldn't put it that way.
And Dylan and Cohen and Warhol and Lou Reed and
lots of others, liked it, -for something there was about it,
-whatever it was.

Dylan mentions "La Dolce Vita" in "Motorpsycho Nitemare"
on "Another Side Of Bob Dylan" from 1964.

Nico played a bit part in that movie.
And so Dylan might have remembered her from that. Or not.
In any case the first person he gave "I'll Keep It With Mine"
to sing, was Nico. So either he thought her voice was
right for it, somehow, or something about the song
reminded him of her. Or maybe he actually wrote it
with her in mind.

(Dylan back then also had a thing about a French singer, - Franciose Hardy)

I'll Keep it with Mine
(Bob Dylan)
You will search, babe, at any cost,
But how long, babe, can you search for what's not lost ?
Everybody will help you,
Some people are very kind.
But if I can save you any time,
Come on, give it to me,
I'll keep it with mine.

I can't help it if you might think I am odd
If I say I'm not loving you for what you are
But for what you're not.
Everybody will help you,
Discover what you set out to find
But if I can save you any time,
Come on, give it to me,
I'll keep it with mine.

The train leaves at half past ten
But it'll be back tomorrow same time again.
The conductor, he's weary,
Still stuck on the line.
But if I can save you any time,
Come on, give it to me,
I'll keep it with mine.

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:09 am**

DBcohen says,

" Hillel was more realistic" (than Jesus).
It must be great to be so wise, DB!

Why do I feel like McMurphy at one of nurse Ratchet's group therapy sessions?

Mat James.

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:37 am**

Mat,

Wise? I wish I were. I don’t feel wise at all. I feel ignorant and lost. Otherwise I wouldn’t have needed someone like Leonard Cohen at my side most of my life. I really don’t know anything, certainly not about divine matters, and only a little about human matters. I do my best to observe and learn. My observation is that there is very little love lost in this world, especially on one’s neighbours. That’s why I feel it is unrealistic to expect it from people. If I could ask for one thing, I would ask for consideration; love is a different matter alltogether.

If I offended you in any way, I apologize with all my heart. Your metaphor wasn’t very kind either, by the way.

D. B. Cohen

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2006 11:38 pm**

DBCohen wrote: If I could ask for one thing, I would ask for consideration; love is a different matter alltogether.
D. B. Cohen

Oh you might as well ask for just a little bit more than consideration. It might be that the command to love is the innermost decision which we cannot but obey

Jack

I saw a beggar, he was leaning on his wooden crutch,
he says to me, "Come on now, you must not ask for so much."
And another pretty woman, she was leaning in her darkened door,
she cried out to me, "Come on now, why don't you ask, why don't you ask for just a
little more?" (just a little more) l. cohen

Posted: **Sat Dec 09, 2006 3:41 am**

DB,
I'm not trying to be kind,
I'm just letting you know how I see things.

It might be that the command to love is the innermost decision which we cannot but obey

I'm with you on this one Jack.

and I might add that if we don't "obey" , then,

....game, set and match,
we lose the game.

...and it is icey and lonely from that point on;
unless, of course, we replace the pieces on the board, and have another go.
And in that sense, our sins are forgiven.

Mat.

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:32 am**

mat james wrote:DB,
I'm not trying to be kind,
I'm just letting you know how I see things.

It certainly is good to see someone who is able to appreciate their own ability to see. It reminds me of Aldus Huxley. Huxley wrote a great number of very excellent books, books that he wrote for money. There was one book though, that he wrote for love, called the “Art of Seeing”. He said that he wrote it completely out of appreciation for having been taught exercises that gave him back his sight. The reason for this was that in his childhood he was declared legally blind and he did his reading using braille and made use of a seeing eye dog. It was with great pride that one day late in his life he was able to read a long speech to a large group of people and to do so without even having to use glasses. He got to that ability by exercising his seeing.

Because he had led such a full intellectual life, had delved so comprehensively in numerous religions and had seriously experimented with a significant number of mind expanding drugs it was only natural that when word got out that he was near to his death that people would come to him and ask what advice he had that he felt he most wanted to offer to others from the wealth of his experience. He replied that he was a little embarrassed by how simple his answer will be but then he said “ Be Kind”

I'm with you on this one Jack.

It’s comforting to learn that you are with me, maybe it can help me figure out where I am. I do know though, where I am not. I am not being invited to too many parties and rightfully so as I think I tend to be too moralistic to be any fun.

Jack

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:02 am**

Jack,
you wrote,

I tend to be too moralistic to be any fun.

.

I ask,
what are morals if not just other peoples' prejudices ( pre-judgements)?

You don't see a cat or a frog moralising.
Morals are not a part of the natural order of things....outside nature in a way.
It seems to me that morals are cultural, and, a subtle human form of pecking order.
Do you like being pecked?

And what about "Judge not, lest you be judged yourself." or,
"Cursed all you Law givers for you have taken away the keys of the kingdom!"
Didn't we get cast east from Eden for "eating the fruit of knowledge of good and evil" !
In that sense, morals are the work of our old mate, Satan.

I enjoyed the Huxley note Jack , but sometimes "we need to be cruel to be kind". It brings about juxtapositions;
very Zen.

Mat.

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2006 11:16 am**

I really don’t wish to continue this argument, which has little or nothing to do with the purpose of this Forum, which, as far as I'm concerned, is to discuss the work of Leonard Cohen. However the following quotation sort of suggested itself at this point. I am going to quote, somewhat at length, a text that says what I want to say far better than I can say in my on words (and it must have been on my mind when I wrote my earlier posting, although similar thoughts have been with me much earlier then this text). This is by Israeli writer Amos Oz, from his great autobiographical novel A Tale of Love and Darkness, translated from Hebrew by Nicholas de Lange. I quote from the Vintage edition (2005), pp. 144-145. Oz is telling about one of his grandfathers, whom the whole family used to call “Papa”.

He considered all human beings to be reckless children who brought great disappointment and suffering upon themselves and each other, all of us trapped in an unending, unsubtle comedy that would generally end badly. All roads led to suffering. Consequently virtually everyone, in Papa’s view, deserved compassion and most of their deeds were worthy of forgiveness, including all sorts of machinations, pranks, deceptions, pretensions, manipulations, false claims and pretences. From all these he would absolve you with his faint, mischievous smile, as though saying (in Yiddish): Nu, what.

The only thing that tested Papa’s amused tolerance were acts of cruelty. These he abhorred. His merry blue eyes clouded over at the news of wicked deeds. “An evil beast? What does the expression mean?” he would reflect in Yiddish. “No beast is evil. No beast is capable of evil. The beasts have yet to invent evil. That is our monopoly, the lords of creation. So maybe we ate the wrong apple in the Garden of Eden after all? Maybe between the tree of life and the tree of knowledge there was another tree growing there in the Garden of Eden, a poisonous tree that is not mentioned in scripture, the tree of evil,” (the tree of rishes, he called it in Yiddish) “and that was the one we accidentally ate from? That scoundrel of a serpent deceived Eve, he promised her that this was definitely the tree of knowledge but it was really the tree of rishes he led her to. Perhaps if he had stuck to the trees of life and knowledge we would never have been thrown out of the garden?”

And then, with his eyes restored to their merry sparkling blue, he went on to explain clearly, in his slow, warm voice and in his picturesque, orotund Yiddish, what Jean-Paul Sartre was only to discover years later: “But what is hell? What is paradise? Surely it is all inside. In our homes. You can find hell and paradise in every room. Behind every door. Under every double blanket. It’s like this. A little wickedness, and people are hell to each other. A little compassion, a little generosity, and people find paradise in each other.

“I said a little compassion and generosity, but I didn’t say love: I’m not such a believer in universal love. Love of everybody for everybody – we should maybe leave that to Jesus. Love is another thing altogether. It is nothing whatever like generosity and nothing whatever like compassion. On the contrary. Love is a curious mixture of opposites, a blend of extreme selfishness and total devotion. A paradox! Besides which, love, everybody is always talking about love, love, but love isn’t something you choose, you catch it, like a disease, you get trapped in it, like a disaster. So what is it that we do choose? What do human beings have to choose between every minute of the day? Generosity, or meanness. Every little child knows that, and yet wickedness still doesn’t come to an end. How can you explain that? It seems we got it all from the apple that we ate back then: we ate a poisoned apple.”

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2006 1:11 pm**

I really don’t wish to continue this argument, which has little or nothing to do with the purpose of this Forum, which, as far as I'm concerned, is to discuss the work of Leonard Cohen.

DB Cohen.

I heard of a saint who had loved you,
so I studied all night in his school.
He taught that the duty of lovers
is to tarnish the golden rule.

L.Cohen. posting 1 on this thread.

I am of the opinion that our little side-chat is perfectly in order.
Don't you think "to tarnish the golden rule", is suggesting that one needs to experiment and discover ones own truth/morality, DB?

DB, interpreting a poem/song is not just about finding a scriptural reference, (though of course it is very important and I and many others appreciate your illuminating input) but it is also about discovering what the poet is trying to say, and, about where the art of that poet takes the reader.
I don't always know where Leonard's images originate, but I do go
"off forth on swing as a skates heel sweeps smoothe on a bow bend" (G M Hopkins) when I read his work.
I love the work of Leonard primarily for this reason.

Does this mean I don't belong?

"one of us cannot be wrong" (thread topic)

by the way, I enjoyed the story about the extra Tree!
One point of order though; as the old man was not quoting correctly:
It is the tree of "knowledge of good and evil"
not just the "tree of knowledge".
This is critical to any understanding/discussion of the "Fall" (golden rules, Law(s) and morality etc), themes which permeate much of Leonard's work.

Thanks for your patience, Mat.

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2006 3:52 pm**

Well, Met, with all due respect to our great LC, it is, after all, possible that we are both wrong; it’s also possible that we are both right (a possibility not excluded by the famous title, if we think of the logic of it). But who decides what’s right and what’s wrong anyhow? Should we really get into it? Other famous lines come to mind: “But let’s not talk of love or chains/ and things we can’t untie…”. Yes, well, here you have it, love again.

As for the lines you quoted, they say that it is “the duty of lovers” to tarnish the golden rule. And since we are not lovers, what is our duty in this case? The song says nothing about tarnishing the golden rule by people other than lovers. Do you perhaps think I’m sticking too strictly to the letter of the law, or the song, in this case? I think not, because the situation of lovers is very special after all, and what applies to them may not apply to people in other circumstances. Now why is it the duty of lovers etc., why is it the duty of lovers etc. – these are all subjects worthy of discussion, I believe, and if we do so we stay with the poem, and perhaps learn something extra, but not wander into space at a tangent that no longer has any grounding in the text.

And, yes, of course I also agree that going beyond the text and seeing were it leads you personally is important, and as long as the discussion is civilized I’m willing to take part in it, provided that I find the subject interesting, or the observations intriguing, and so on. I also believe that certain texts, impressions etc. can sometime mean something very personal and unique to each and every one of us, but I’m not sure that every thought, idea or implication that we have must necessarily be meaningful to other people. So I vote in favor of self control; the world is at enough chaos as it is without us contributing further to it.