U2's second chance

[Salome]

It's only fruitless if you were hoping to get facts out of it. The only thing that we have to offer on these boards are opinions (except for the rare cases when someone has a scoop).

no, opinions don't need to stand in the way of a good discussion
esp since music is just about all opinions
it can still broaden your view on things

but to discuss the future of a band based on your opinion why 2 songs appeared on their latest album and hardly acknowledging this is nothing more than your opinion - that's fruitless

 

[bram]

no, opinions don't need to stand in the way of a good discussion
esp since music is just about all opinions
it can still broaden your view on things

but to discuss the future of a band based on your opinion why 2 songs appeared on their latest album and hardly acknowledging this is nothing more than your opinion - that's fruitless

Heh, there's been a lot of posts in this thread and that's just one of them. How much do I need to acknowledge my opinion? I go out of my way to say things like "I think" and "to me" in nearly every sentence precisely so that I don't have to encounter posts like this. If you'd like, I'll add a signature that says "Warning: anything in above post, unless otherwise stated, is strictly my opinion and should NOT be taken as fact". God knows I have a healthy enough suspicion of my own opinions--they can and will change.

And if you don't want to discuss the future of the band, there are more than enough threads discussing their past.

 

[Salome]

I don't care about people using IMO or IMHO or whatever
I'm just pointing out that when guessing about what someone else is going to do you should at least start with what you know instead of something you've repeated often enough to mistake it for the truth

then you have a platform from which you can discuss the band's future
and I would happily join

 

[bram]

you should at least start with what you know instead of something you've repeated often enough to mistake it for the truth

What does this mean? Please explain. And please provide an example.

It sounds like you're saying we shouldn't discuss possibilities for the future based on our opinions of what's happened in the past. Is this right? If that's the correct OPINION on how discussions should unfold, I suppose there really is nothing to discuss.

I guess my next theory on how Bono's conversion to Islam is going to affect his lyrics is out of the question.

 

[LemonMelon]

I do believe he's referring to the "00s U2 used commercial success to compensate for creative barrenness" line of thinking that he hates so much. In this case, that can be applied to U2 padding NLOTH with Crazy Tonight and SUC to ensure that their creativity would not be squandered on an audience that isn't listening.

That's an even more ridiculous idea on paper than it is in my head.

 

[bram]

Ah, ok. A post that thoughtfully questioned an assumption I made (instead of vaguely alluding to it) would have been a tad more 'fruitful', I think.

I think the specific motive(s) for the inclusion of these songs is not terribly relevant. The point is that there was tension--at least between Eno and some of the band--about song inclusion. And given the bringing in of Lillywhite, I think we have a pretty good idea about the song(s) in question. I'm going on memory here, so stop me when I start speaking pure hearsay...

I'm not actually sure how relevant this is to what we were talking about in the past few pages though.

 

[Niceman]

Solid post, and I actually agree with many of your thoughts on what constitutes an album, but in a vague, general way--not in this specific instance.

Stand Up Comedy is at the heart of this album and belonged on it

I appreciate your close reading analysis of SUC's lyrics, but I can't say that I find anything compelling about 'lines' or 'up and down and back and forth'. I think you can approach any U2 song (or any song) in a similar manner and achieve similar, vague results. So I have to say that I still fail to see how this song--musically, lyrically, or 'moodily'--fits into NLOTH.

I think you're right to suggest that the majority of us don't simply dismiss these middle 3 songs. But I do think that a majority of us have some minor quibble with at least some part of this section. My issue rests mostly with SUC, and I actually think that snipping this song or replacing it with Winter or Kingdom would have made a big, positive difference for so small a change.

To tie this all back to the next album(s), I think that songs like SUC and CT would be fine for what we've heard and heard about the Rubin material (and also about the new 'happy' songs they're working on). But I think I'd rather not have a SUC or Elevation-type 'fun' song on SOA. Think about UF (or even AB) for a minute. Would a SUC work there? An Elevation? I think those two albums are the best achievements in overall 'mood' of any U2 albums. And I think that's very much related to the fact that neither has this type of rocking, reach-the-sky, lyrically-playful U2 song.

Thank you.

I don't think there's anything vague about the link I pointed out between the lyrics in SUC and the themes of NLOTH. I do agree that the up-down-lines theme is throughout the album, although perhaps most prevalent in SUC. But it is specific to the album. You wouldn't find it considering songs on JT or AB. SUC isn't a song that could have been on just any album, but one that really only belonged here.

You don't like it. I get that, but that doesn't mean the same thing as that the song didn't belong.

Also, consider that one of the greatest weaknesses of ATYCLB was that it only had one half-way decent up-tempo song: Elevation. (New York is, in my opinion, one of the very worst things the band has ever done.) One of my problems with it was that the other half of the album seemed to be missing. It didn't go anywhere. And live..... well, I've said before that I think the Elevation tour is the weakest tour they've ever had, and I think the missing up-tempo tracks are part of the reason why.

I don't know how you feel about ATYCLB, but maybe there we have an example of an album that does what you're suggesting NLOTH should have done, but in that case.... well, I think it's the worst album they have, but maybe that's just me.....

 

[allbecauseofu2]

i'm waiting for someone to say NLOTH was awesome except for NLOTH,SUC,COL,SUC,IGCIIDGCT,MAG,MOS,BREATHE,FBB,WAS,and UC.

 

[bram]

NLOTH was awesome except for NLOTH,SUC,COL,SUC,IGCIIDGCT,MAG,MOS,BREATHE,FBB,WAS,and UC. They should have just had NLOTH 2 playing back-to-back 11 times.

 

[phommel]

NLOTH was awesome except for NLOTH,SUC,COL,SUC,IGCIIDGCT,MAG,MOS,BREATHE,FBB,WAS,and UC. They should have just had NLOTH 2 playing back-to-back 11 times.

LOL!

I think NLOTH2 could have been a great single.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

yea, they should have called it NLOTH2. Like work the word "two" into the song.lol.

 

[phommel]

An album is not meant to have only one sound. An album is meant to be made up of more than one act.

"Album" has never meant: "The songs all sound alike" or even "Are cut from the same cloth."

But an "album" has also never meant the opposite. So there goes your argument. It's about what we would want an album to be.

 

[LemonMelon]

"Album" has never meant: "The songs all sound alike" or even "Are cut from the same cloth."

Is Sgt. Pepper OK?

 

[Niceman]

But an "album" has also never meant the opposite. So there goes your argument. It's about what we would want an album to be.

Not sure where you think my argument went. Are you suggesting that all of the songs on NLOTH are the opposite? I haven't heard anyone express THAT opinion before.

 

[Niceman]

Is Sgt. Pepper OK?

Last I checked, it was in stable condition!

 

[U2Soar]

Niceman: “90% of what I see posted on this board these days is "I wish they hadn't put SUC, GOYB, and IGCIIDGCT on NLOTH because they ruined the flow of the album." It's repeated over and over and passes for a new thought each time.

I respectfully disagree. An album is not meant to have only one sound. An album is meant to be made up of more than one act. Consider, for just a moment, that these three songs actually do belong on the album, that they are a part of the journey. Their sound is not homogenous with UC and MOS, but do they have to be to belong on the same album? Yes, the middle act is jarring. It is different than acts one and three which seem to have much more in common with one another, but does that mean that it doesn't belong? I'm not sure that the apparently consensus opinion on this is as sound as you all seem to think.

"Album" has never meant: "The songs all sound alike" or even "Are cut from the same cloth."

Now, those of you who happen to be unfortunate enough to simply not LIKE SUC. That's up to you. But it does not follow that that means the song didn't belong there. The lyrics constantly reference the themes of the album. (Maybe more than any other song on the album!) It isn't tacked on. It's all about lines (on the horizon?)

"I've got to stand up"
"The wire is stretched inbetween our two towers"
"Stop helping God across the road..."
"Out from under your beds"
"Like a small child crossing an eight lane highway on a voyage of discovery."
"Napolean is in high heals."
"Small men with big ideas."
"Stand up for your love."
"Stand up and sit down for your love."

It's all up and down and back and forth. Sorry, but Stand Up Comedy is at the heart of this album and belonged on it!

Yes, in the middle of a more mellow and silver album, they make what feels like a left turn into a more "pop" and red place. But I don't think this is as haphazard or sloppy as most of you apparently do"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, Niceman, you got me thinking about the infamous “middle three” songs. I’ve always been in the camp which has not cared for them and that they disrupt the mood and the style of the album. Yet, instead of skipping past these middle three songs (or eliminating them altogether our own version of No Line track list), maybe they can have a purpose and place. However, I’d like to propose that they not be positioned as the “jarring” middle act but rather I think that they may work as part of the final and third act.

The beginning part of the first act could be about establishing the central character’s personal downward spiral and marital breakdown. An introduction to the background which has led to this person’s descent into darkness (drugs, alcohol, infidelity, etc.) Songs = No Line, Fast Cars, and Disappearing Act. The second half of this first act could detail this character suffering from PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder). The flashbacks of when he was soldier himself. The depression which is overwhelming him as he now travels a war correspondent. Songs = Winter, White As Snow, and Cedars Of Lebanon

The middle act could present his experience of an epiphany, a life changing transformation, a new birth. Songs = Moment Of Surrender, Unknown Caller, and Fez / Being Born.

The third act could describe his homecoming. He returns to his family as someone committed to being “clean and sober.” He reconciles with his wife. He enters therapy for healing from PTSD. He leaves his job as a war correspondent and starts a new career. His life is filled with love and joy. He sees his life as beautiful and worth living to its fullest and truest. The third act is one of celebration. Songs = Magnificent, Crazy Tonight, Get On Your Boots, Stand Up, Breathe, and Window In The Skies

1. No Line
2. Fast Cars (Jacknife Lee Version)
3. Disappearing Act
4. Winter
5. White As Snow
6. Cedars Of Lebanon
7. Moment Of Surrender
8. Unknown Caller
9. Fez / Being Born
10. Magnificent
11. Crazy Tonight
12. Get On Your Boots
13. Stand Up
14. Breathe
15. Window In The Skies

 

[U2387]

Very true... the opinion part. I for one think the opposite, I think SUC is very Bomb-ish but in a bad way, and I think CT sounds very fresh. I don't know why this song gets so much shit in here, to me it sounds like U2 putting their spin on 60's pop and it has a slightly clever lyric. The only downfall of the song is the poorly delivered falsetto.

I agree. Crazy is definitely more a 60s pop feel than anything else. The first impression I had of it was it feels very fresh for U2. I can't really say they were recycling anything here. Maybe it is what they were trying to get at with Wild Honey or OOTS, but the former just did not do it and the latter is a different kind of song entirely, but just as good.

SUC may have some similar sounds to the songs bram mentioned, but there are only so many sounds out there. It reminds me of people saying Ultraviolet and NLOTH(the track) are the same. SUC breaks new ground for all 4 members.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

SUC reminds me of oasis. I can so see them singing the chorus of SUC.

 

[Niceman]

Niceman: “90% of what I see posted on this board these days is "I wish they hadn't put SUC, GOYB, and IGCIIDGCT on NLOTH because they ruined the flow of the album." It's repeated over and over and passes for a new thought each time.

I respectfully disagree. An album is not meant to have only one sound. An album is meant to be made up of more than one act. Consider, for just a moment, that these three songs actually do belong on the album, that they are a part of the journey. Their sound is not homogenous with UC and MOS, but do they have to be to belong on the same album? Yes, the middle act is jarring. It is different than acts one and three which seem to have much more in common with one another, but does that mean that it doesn't belong? I'm not sure that the apparently consensus opinion on this is as sound as you all seem to think.

"Album" has never meant: "The songs all sound alike" or even "Are cut from the same cloth."

Now, those of you who happen to be unfortunate enough to simply not LIKE SUC. That's up to you. But it does not follow that that means the song didn't belong there. The lyrics constantly reference the themes of the album. (Maybe more than any other song on the album!) It isn't tacked on. It's all about lines (on the horizon?)

"I've got to stand up"
"The wire is stretched inbetween our two towers"
"Stop helping God across the road..."
"Out from under your beds"
"Like a small child crossing an eight lane highway on a voyage of discovery."
"Napolean is in high heals."
"Small men with big ideas."
"Stand up for your love."
"Stand up and sit down for your love."

It's all up and down and back and forth. Sorry, but Stand Up Comedy is at the heart of this album and belonged on it!

Yes, in the middle of a more mellow and silver album, they make what feels like a left turn into a more "pop" and red place. But I don't think this is as haphazard or sloppy as most of you apparently do"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, Niceman, you got me thinking about the infamous “middle three” songs. I’ve always been in the camp which has not cared for them and that they disrupt the mood and the style of the album. Yet, instead of skipping past these middle three songs (or eliminating them altogether our own version of No Line track list), maybe they can have a purpose and place. However, I’d like to propose that they not be positioned as the “jarring” middle act but rather I think that they may work as part of the final and third act.

The beginning part of the first act could be about establishing the central character’s personal downward spiral and marital breakdown. An introduction to the background which has led to this person’s descent into darkness (drugs, alcohol, infidelity, etc.) Songs = No Line, Fast Cars, and Disappearing Act. The second half of this first act could detail this character suffering from PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder). The flashbacks of when he was soldier himself. The depression which is overwhelming him as he now travels a war correspondent. Songs = Winter, White As Snow, and Cedars Of Lebanon

The middle act could present his experience of an epiphany, a life changing transformation, a new birth. Songs = Moment Of Surrender, Unknown Caller, and Fez / Being Born.

The third act could describe his homecoming. He returns to his family as someone committed to being “clean and sober.” He reconciles with his wife. He enters therapy for healing from PTSD. He leaves his job as a war correspondent and starts a new career. His life is filled with love and joy. He sees his life as beautiful and worth living to its fullest and truest. The third act is one of celebration. Songs = Magnificent, Crazy Tonight, Get On Your Boots, Stand Up, Breathe, and Window In The Skies

1. No Line
2. Fast Cars (Jacknife Lee Version)
3. Disappearing Act
4. Winter
5. White As Snow
6. Cedars Of Lebanon
7. Moment Of Surrender
8. Unknown Caller
9. Fez / Being Born
10. Magnificent
11. Crazy Tonight
12. Get On Your Boots
13. Stand Up
14. Breathe
15. Window In The Skies

I think that the most interesting thing that you've done is to place FEZ-BB right after UC. From a storytelling perspective, that is exactly what you would do. That is, if we tell the story LINEARLY (pun intended!)

That said, maybe Magnificent would fit better a little later? We could climb to that level through IGCIIDGCT and soime of the others before we end up in that ecstatic state....

BUT my dark artistic taste demands an Acrobat. The best thing about AB is that Ultraviolet is not the last song. Acrobat shows up to say; "Oh, and by the way, I'm full of shit!" And then LIB has to come in and make a dark compromise....

 

[ozeeko]

1. No Line
2. Fast Cars (Jacknife Lee Version)
3. Disappearing Act
4. Winter
5. White As Snow
6. Cedars Of Lebanon
7. Moment Of Surrender
8. Unknown Caller
9. Fez / Being Born
10. Magnificent
11. Crazy Tonight
12. Get On Your Boots
13. Stand Up
14. Breathe
15. Window In The Skies

This is a pretty brilliant idea, except that, and it's funny, even in this totally logical linear presentation...i still feel like CT and SUC sound out of place, haha.

I'm not even a huge fan of breathe, but i could see it working in that context, maybe right after Magnificent. The whole "i found grace inside a sound part" sounds cathartic in that context, like the character finally finds what he's looking for. Still tho, CT and SUC, to pin it down what irks me about the songs, i think is the feeling like it's not coming from a character. It's more of just Bono up on stage behind the podium making a would-be inspirational speech. I mean, CT was inspired by Obama's campaign for crying out loud. And SUC dabbles a lot in self-deprication (poorly executed) with Bono poking fun at himself. These to me seem like songs about Bono and what Bono thinks. Not what the character thinks, but about what Bono, the celebrity, the philanthropist, the singer of U2, thinks. That to me is the biggest reason why these songs sound out of place.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I think MERCY would sound a lot better than those songs in this tracklisting. And I've never been a huge fan of that number!

If I was putting cutting this tracklist to disc, I'd probably even take off GOYB. Again, too many soundbytes. Too many lines that sound torn from the speechbook of Bono. And Window In The Skies, I'm not sure it works as a closing song. It wraps things up a little too neatly and easily, like a contrived Hollywood ending. I'm not sure there is a suitable ending.

 

[65980]

Still, I think it's very likely that some of the band members, given how NLOTH turned out on the commercial front in spite of CT and SUC, probably wished they had, if anything, stuck closer to the original formula for NLOTH... ...U2 is aware... that they got a little skittish and ended up reaching out a little more for radio/00s U2 sound than NLOTH was originally intended for.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that there's probably a contingent within the U2 camp (and probably within each individual member) that thinks they'd have been better off doing what many of us here would have liked to see--stick to an even stronger departure from HTDAAB/00s U2.

I think you've made a great post here, and I think this is a really good point which has been completely overlooked on this forum -- that NLOTH is one of the most compromised U2 albums ever.

I realize few people like HTAAB as much as I do, and I concur with the majority opinion that it was time to stretch their music more with last year's album -- in that sense, they almost got it right. But I do not support the opinion that NLOTH is a more "conceptual" or "more thematic" album than the two that precede it. If anything, it's their most calculated, compromised album since Rattle & Hum (which I actually prefer, but never mind).

The thing that was immediately obvious from first listening to NLOTH last year is that they had very carefully (over-)worked the tracks and the tracklisting (well, we know as fact that they cancelled the original version of the album to add some last-minute tinkerings) to try to cover all bases. That is, they knew they had to include some more out-there music, but they also wanted desperately to try to hold onto the mass audience they'd won (back) with the two previous albums. Not only this, but they spent longer doing it than on any other album in their history. The result is a typically good album (U2 are too talented and perfectionist to ever make a poor LP), but also their most overly-labored and compromised. The "labored" part I can forgive them for (they're almost 50 and have earned the right to take forever making albums -- the previous albums were also labored, too), but the compromised part is, for me, very disappointing.

There are really about 3 different U2 albums sandwiched together on NLOTH, which, depending on your perspective, represents either a diverse collection or a big commercial compromise. Obviously, I see it as the latter, but some people might disagree.

I'm bound to like almost anything that U2 puts out, so I'm very happy with their career this past decade and I look forward to the next release. But I am (like many of you) getting tired of the "let's try to be as big as the latest MTV-Pop fad" mentality of the band, which is, frankly, baffling.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

i def agree this album is good/very good, but not great. Some songs became greater in a live setting. MOS and GOYB for me personaly. I have to say for GOYB, once again for me personaly , has to be the biggest gap in quailty between studio and live. I used to believe the one i felt was the biggest , was discoteque. In that case the live version being no where near the studio. But i felt later on in popmart, and then even better on vertigo, they did close the gap. GOYB studio is just, bad. I mean compared to the live version its as bad as grace. And even not compared to the live version, its like a step above. Of course, perhaps that could be the ultimate feat u2 never has really tried. capturing the live feel on a studio record. Would be interesting if ever recorded that way.

 

[Popmartijn]

I think you've made a great post here, and I think this is a really good point which has been completely overlooked on this forum -- that NLOTH is one of the most compromised U2 albums ever.

How would you come to the conclusion that NLOTH is one of the most compromised U2 albums ever? And for the understanding in this discussion, how do you define 'compromised'?
I disagree with this view, as I think U2 made exactly the album they wanted to make. They did not compromise (in the definition of acceding to a suggestion by someone else just so one of their own suggestions also gets accepted) the song selection, but included what they wanted to include.

The thing that was immediately obvious from first listening to NLOTH last year is that they had very carefully (over-)worked the tracks and the tracklisting (well, we know as fact that they cancelled the original version of the album to add some last-minute tinkerings) to try to cover all bases.

How is it a fact they cancelled the original version? I think this is more your theory than an established fact. I, for one, had never heard about this. Yes, during the recording of the album there have been some changes (the work-in-progress version that Anton Corbijn based Linear on is different than the final released version), but I don't see that as cancelling the original version. This is the way U2 work and have done for decades.

Not only this, but they spent longer doing it than on any other album in their history.

I don't think this is true. I believe that it took longer for U2 to make ATYCLB (first sessions certainly in mid-1998, so more than 2 years before the release of the album) and HTDAAB (with the first sessions for that album being held late 2001/early 2002, almost 3 years before the release of the album) than NLOTH (first confirmed sessions in April 2007, about 2 years before the album release).

There are really about 3 different U2 albums sandwiched together on NLOTH, which, depending on your perspective, represents either a diverse collection or a big commercial compromise. Obviously, I see it as the latter, but some people might disagree.

Hmm... I hear only one U2 album on NLOTH. It is an album that goes through some stages, but if feels like one album to me. The middle three belong just as well on it as the other songs. In fact, I love the transition from UC to IGCIIDGCT.

 

[phommel]

Not sure where you think my argument went. Are you suggesting that all of the songs on NLOTH are the opposite? I haven't heard anyone express THAT opinion before.

What I meant is that an "album" is not meant to be anything.

 

[Niceman]

What I meant is that an "album" is not meant to be anything.

Well, then I disagree, and I'm completely sure U2 would too.

 

[U2Soar]

Niceman: “I think that the most interesting thing that you've done is to place FEZ-BB right after UC. From a storytelling perspective, that is exactly what you would do. That is, if we tell the story LINEARLY (pun intended!)

That said, maybe Magnificent would fit better a little later? We could climb to that level through IGCIIDGCT and some of the others before we end up in that ecstatic state....”

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the Fez / Being Born comment. I like how it could be seen as describing this character waking up at noon at a Middle Eastern motel after the epiphany of the evening and night before. Groggy and trying get his bearings while the midday marketplace sounds pour into his room. Then it details the jubilant journey back home.

I agree that Magnificent does not fit following immediately after the Epiphany Trilogy. It brings about too much resolution and too quickly. This character has done too much damage for the marriage to be healed that suddenly. Maybe Window In The Skies should take its place?

It provides a declaration to his wife of the epiphany that he has just experienced – “The shackles are undone. The bullets quit the gun. The heat that's in the sun. Will keep us when it's done. The rule has been disproved. The stone, it has been moved. The grave is now a grove. All debts are removed. Oh, can't you see what love has done.”

Also, it offers an apology to his wife - “I know I hurt you and I made you cry. Did everything but murder you and I. But love left a window in the skies. And to love I rhapsodize. To every broken heart. For every heart that cries. Love left a window in the skies. And to love I rhapsodize.” The request for forgiveness continues in Crazy Tonight.

Should Magnificent follow Stand Up or should Breathe?

 

[LemonMelon]

How is it a fact they cancelled the original version? I think this is more your theory than an established fact. I, for one, had never heard about this.

He's referring to U2 formally delaying the album in September 2008 in order to take a bite out of the moon (no wonder Paul McGuinness was on board) or whatever the fuck kind of bumper sticker slogan Bono was pushing at the time.

Frankly, I think Chesty LaRoux is miles off. I'm not sure where exactly this third album within NLOTH resides, but I think the album holds together well enough outside of a few bids for commercial acknowledgment. As for the MOST compromised U2 album, anyone here listen to War lately? It's split between "THE WHOLE WORLD IS FUCKED LET'S SAVE OUR SOULS UNGH COME ON" tracks like SBS and Like A Song, and personal/romantic observations like THBAO and Drowning Man. That album is quite literally a two-fer, unless you count Red Light as a separate album entirely. Then we're looking at a box set.

 

[Niceman]

Niceman: “I think that the most interesting thing that you've done is to place FEZ-BB right after UC. From a storytelling perspective, that is exactly what you would do. That is, if we tell the story LINEARLY (pun intended!)

That said, maybe Magnificent would fit better a little later? We could climb to that level through IGCIIDGCT and some of the others before we end up in that ecstatic state....”

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the Fez / Being Born comment. I like how it could be seen as describing this character waking up at noon at a Middle Eastern motel after the epiphany of the evening and night before. Groggy and trying get his bearings while the midday marketplace sounds pour into his room. Then it details the jubilant journey back home.

I agree that Magnificent does not fit following immediately after the Epiphany Trilogy. It brings about too much resolution and too quickly. This character has done too much damage for the marriage to be healed that suddenly. Maybe Window In The Skies should take its place?

It provides a declaration to his wife of the epiphany that he has just experienced – “The shackles are undone. The bullets quit the gun. The heat that's in the sun. Will keep us when it's done. The rule has been disproved. The stone, it has been moved. The grave is now a grove. All debts are removed. Oh, can't you see what love has done.”

Also, it offers an apology to his wife - “I know I hurt you and I made you cry. Did everything but murder you and I. But love left a window in the skies. And to love I rhapsodize. To every broken heart. For every heart that cries. Love left a window in the skies. And to love I rhapsodize.” The request for forgiveness continues in Crazy Tonight.

Should Magnificent follow Stand Up or should Breathe?

What if Disappearing Act followed FEZ?

 

[U2Soar]

How would you see Disappearing Act fitting into the story at that point?

 

[Niceman]

How would you see Disappearing Act fitting into the story at that point?

Well, (and we are on a big tangent here..) I guess I believe an impure rising action more than an ecstatic one. maybe he has to cut some ties on his way back?