We can talk about the defining factors or the driving forces.
There’s also this albatross buried in the plea of Phoebe, and the bull that is derived in the demands of the Manchester version.
Do you want to talk about rhetorical sentences, and how their sentiments waver, and how when they recover they land like figure skaters falling?
I want to believe that both versions, regardless of the volume, or the weight, or the pace, that they are asking, with the insurance of interest, for an ear, and a response.
Yet, is Manchester’s demanding pace tricking us into some false sense of confident certainty?
Is every confident tone one of certainty?
As for Phoebe’s soft resignations, though delicate and resinous, they approach these failed endeavors with the hard stops of heavy breaths.
Is that beautiful?
Or, with grace, an exercise in backsliding?
Do you want to talk about the fact that you’re the one I want to ask these questions to?
Am I selfish if I want you to have likewise questions?
Do You think the people that prefer the Phoebe version are taken advantage of in life?
And the Manchester fans are the ones that take advantage?
Or vice versa?
If the words are the same, does that mean that language is useless, context and tone are everything?
I’m sure the Phoebe version sounds triumphant, and the Manchester defeated to a great many people.
I'm only half of one of those great many people.
How can the same words find such defining lines?
Are the singers just actors?
Are they portraying the tone and context that they believe, subjectively, to best expose human fragility?
Do the words fall wayside, like sidekicks, to the performance of their bellowing?
Do you find these questions leading?