And I
I called through the air that night
I can't see your voice without light (I can't just listen to what you say without bringing in the truth as I see it)
I could only smile
I've been alone some time
And all in all
It's been fun
And you
You had hope for me now
I danced all around it somehow
Be fair to me
I may drift awhile
Were it up to me
You'd know why
I
I called through the air that night
My thoughts were swarming inside
Was it infantile
That which we desire
Were it up to me
Or the warmth from your eyes (if merely being kind or looking on me in favor could win my heart and affect the outcome of my decisions)
And I
I called through the air that night
My thoughts were still buried inside
We were closer then
I'd been alone some time
Filled your glass with gin
Filled your heart with pride
And you
You had hope for me now
I danced all around it somehow
Be fair to me
I may drift awhile
If there's a plan for me
Would it make you smile
No I don't want to be there for no one
I'd stay here
No I don't want to be there for no one
That's over the sea
I don't want to follow your light
On the sea
No I don't want to be there for no one
That I can't see
In my opinion there is a unspoken duality here between the apparent relationship beween lovers and the relationship between man and Creator/God (as suggested by @moflo). The protagonist/singer (Zach Condon) appears to be struggling to balance his passions. On one side we have Zach's love for music and culture displayed by his wanderlust and being a professional musical artist. On the other side we have the human need for love and intimacy. The song portrays a close relationship in the past between the protagonist and the object of affection ("I've been alone some time","We were closer then"). In the present tense of the song the two seem to have met again and have spent some time talking and reconnecting. During this period it is implied that the object of affection has appealed to become a more permanent fixture in the protagonist's life ("You had hope for me now"). However, still it seems that the protagonist is purposefully, albeit possibly unconsciously, avoiding a commitment to the object of affection. The protagonist appeals to the object of affection to ("Be fair to me") stating ("I may drift awhile"). Here, we go back to the protagonist's wanderlust and demands as a musical artist. He is asking for some grace from the object of affection, some leeway to satisfy the desires of his heart not contained within the relationship with the object of affection. He is also saying that it will most likely take some time in order to satiate (satisfy) those desires. The protagonist goes on to say, "Were it up to me, You'd know why". This is pretty straight-forward, he doesn't have full understanding of why these desires are so compelling, and furthermore, that if indeed he could understand he would willingly give reason. When we get to "Was it infantile, That which we desire", it begs the question, are the desires of our hearts both unwittingly immature and without full depth of understanding (more simply and broadly, isn't what you want and what I want both equally selfish?)[especially in the context of a Creator/God, obviously any of these would have full depth of understanding and wit]. In the past tense the protagonist continuously references one night ("I called through the air that night") where the protagonist is saying he called out to/for the object of affection. My take on this is that he tried to reach out to the object of affection toward the end of the first segment of their relationship (where the object of affection is unhappy with their relationship and is becoming distant) in an attempt to reassure them and secure their relationship, but was unable to voice his thoughts or articulate them completely ("My thoughts were swarming inside"/"My thoughts were still buried inside") and so the object of affection leaves for awhile. Then the protagonist is reflecting on the past when he says "We were closer then, I'd been alone some time". My vision here is that he is referring to the first segment of their relationship and stating their closeness at that time while also stating that the he had been alone for some time before their first relationship even occurred(most likely enjoying himself and engaging in his non-relational passions). This statement would coincide with the idea that the time spent alone following one's heart satisfying your own life's desires would allow for more room to be malleable within a relationship later. At this time in their relationship the object of affection celebrated and took pride in the desires and accomplishments of the protagonist("Filled your glass with gin, Filled your heart with pride". Once again we come to the "Be fair to me" part of the verse. Only this time the protagonist asks "If there's a plan for me, Would it make you smile". If the object of affection could know that there is a plan for the life of the protagonist that would bring about wonderful and great things. If the ambitions and aspirations of the protagonist and it's implied accordance with fate could be understood objectively by the object of affection, would or could they be happy for the protagonist in spite of their own personal loss. Obviously not all of this can be applied to a relationship with a Creator/God and is intended as a partial double entendre. I could go on and on about this subject but I'll just end with this statement. This is the quintessential "it's not you it's me" song, only here it's true. Comments and questions are welcome. Thanks Zach for a absolutely beautiful song!
And I I called through the air that night I can't see your voice without light (I can't just listen to what you say without bringing in the truth as I see it) I could only smile I've been alone some time
And all in all It's been fun
And you You had hope for me now I danced all around it somehow
Be fair to me I may drift awhile Were it up to me You'd know why
I I called through the air that night My thoughts were swarming inside Was it infantile That which we desire
Were it up to me Or the warmth from your eyes (if merely being kind or looking on me in favor could win my heart and affect the outcome of my decisions)
And I I called through the air that night My thoughts were still buried inside
We were closer then I'd been alone some time Filled your glass with gin Filled your heart with pride
And you You had hope for me now I danced all around it somehow
Be fair to me I may drift awhile If there's a plan for me Would it make you smile
No I don't want to be there for no one I'd stay here No I don't want to be there for no one That's over the sea I don't want to follow your light On the sea No I don't want to be there for no one That I can't see
In my opinion there is a unspoken duality here between the apparent relationship beween lovers and the relationship between man and Creator/God (as suggested by @moflo). The protagonist/singer (Zach Condon) appears to be struggling to balance his passions. On one side we have Zach's love for music and culture displayed by his wanderlust and being a professional musical artist. On the other side we have the human need for love and intimacy. The song portrays a close relationship in the past between the protagonist and the object of affection ("I've been alone some time","We were closer then"). In the present tense of the song the two seem to have met again and have spent some time talking and reconnecting. During this period it is implied that the object of affection has appealed to become a more permanent fixture in the protagonist's life ("You had hope for me now"). However, still it seems that the protagonist is purposefully, albeit possibly unconsciously, avoiding a commitment to the object of affection. The protagonist appeals to the object of affection to ("Be fair to me") stating ("I may drift awhile"). Here, we go back to the protagonist's wanderlust and demands as a musical artist. He is asking for some grace from the object of affection, some leeway to satisfy the desires of his heart not contained within the relationship with the object of affection. He is also saying that it will most likely take some time in order to satiate (satisfy) those desires. The protagonist goes on to say, "Were it up to me, You'd know why". This is pretty straight-forward, he doesn't have full understanding of why these desires are so compelling, and furthermore, that if indeed he could understand he would willingly give reason. When we get to "Was it infantile, That which we desire", it begs the question, are the desires of our hearts both unwittingly immature and without full depth of understanding (more simply and broadly, isn't what you want and what I want both equally selfish?)[especially in the context of a Creator/God, obviously any of these would have full depth of understanding and wit]. In the past tense the protagonist continuously references one night ("I called through the air that night") where the protagonist is saying he called out to/for the object of affection. My take on this is that he tried to reach out to the object of affection toward the end of the first segment of their relationship (where the object of affection is unhappy with their relationship and is becoming distant) in an attempt to reassure them and secure their relationship, but was unable to voice his thoughts or articulate them completely ("My thoughts were swarming inside"/"My thoughts were still buried inside") and so the object of affection leaves for awhile. Then the protagonist is reflecting on the past when he says "We were closer then, I'd been alone some time". My vision here is that he is referring to the first segment of their relationship and stating their closeness at that time while also stating that the he had been alone for some time before their first relationship even occurred(most likely enjoying himself and engaging in his non-relational passions). This statement would coincide with the idea that the time spent alone following one's heart satisfying your own life's desires would allow for more room to be malleable within a relationship later. At this time in their relationship the object of affection celebrated and took pride in the desires and accomplishments of the protagonist("Filled your glass with gin, Filled your heart with pride". Once again we come to the "Be fair to me" part of the verse. Only this time the protagonist asks "If there's a plan for me, Would it make you smile". If the object of affection could know that there is a plan for the life of the protagonist that would bring about wonderful and great things. If the ambitions and aspirations of the protagonist and it's implied accordance with fate could be understood objectively by the object of affection, would or could they be happy for the protagonist in spite of their own personal loss. Obviously not all of this can be applied to a relationship with a Creator/God and is intended as a partial double entendre. I could go on and on about this subject but I'll just end with this statement. This is the quintessential "it's not you it's me" song, only here it's true. Comments and questions are welcome. Thanks Zach for a absolutely beautiful song!
-Aesop Grimm