Hello It's Me

I agree that this is indeed about a complex relationship and complicated emotions involved, as a result. But I don't agree with the simple interpretation that this is an affair. For one, the song was written in '68 by Rundgren for Nazz. A decade really doesn't die until half-way through the new decade; for instance, sure, we'll be into the '20-teens' next year, but don't expect the 'early naughts' feel to dissipate until 2015, at least. And, simply stated, the sentiments were much stronger in the 20th century. 60's attitudes were well in force into the 70's -- just as the music from the early-to-mid 80's was still strongly 70's influence. This is just where the cultural consciousness was.

Given that preamble, consider some of the mindset going on here -- specifically, the sexual revolution. Free-love. A whole revolutionized style of relating. Changing attitudes. Now, by the 80s, we'd all come out of the (somewhat drug-induced, heh) fog of limitless hedonism -- and suffered the health results. Plus, the religious fundamentalists came barrelling through with paraphernalia waving, stating that such behaviours were against [insert-chosen-deity-here] and that's the explanation for disease and what-have-you. Ridiculous, unproven, sure -- but the end result was undeniable: people were sick, dying, and some sort of control needed to be put back into place.

So, it's not surprising that sanctioned pair-bonding and nuclear families were again en vogue, with the polyamoury of the past becoming too dicey and remaining in the minority. Still, the backlash was there, and the attitudes remain in the cultural subconscious. (That's why you see a lot of it coming back in the alternative lifestyles which embrace them.)

Now, back to Rundgren. Since this was first written in that era, I'm much more inclined to think that this is the sentiment of the tail-end of that paradigm shift. It doesn't have to be an affair, as some have suggested, (and not without merit). Nobody had to be lying. In the case of polyamoury, everyone's aware of everything, there's heavy negotiation, and the understanding that there will be multiple romantic and / or sexual relationships active within the group, or a single pair-bonding. Like swinging, but with some different controls in place.

Listen to the song again with this in mind. You might be surprised just how much it seems to fit. Yes, she (or even he) is likely married, or in an otherwise committed, legally-recognized relationship, and the other is not; quite possibly single. Yes, the relationship presents some issues of unfairness and can be very complicated -- for both, but namely the single individual.

I feel the 'I never want to make you change for me' line to be the real ticket. It's possible that a relationship was tried given the intensity of emotion between the two, and failed on the grounds that the single partner needs to be more than he (or she) ever can be, given the prior obligation and commitment of the otherwise 'taken' partner. It's nobody's fault, and just plain sucks, honestly. So he sums it up rather well, I feel: they'll see each other 'once in awhile', or if they need a reason to smile, and, if attitudes should change, re-introduce a romantic and / or sexual component.

But for whatever reason, either the narrator (Rundgren) or the one to whom he's singing has decided that, due to whatever, a relationship cannot continue for reasons not given. It's probably quite painful. They might still be in love. They may remain friends. As a result, he wants to make sure that (likely the single partner) knows that she 'is free', isn't expected to change, and he still loves her. And, if she decides that she 'just doesn't care' (about the complication) once again, or potentially even finds a partner herself who is open-minded and free-thinking, they could try again.

Complex song. Complicated emotions, but very powerful. Three cheers to Rundgren. The man gets it.