ok, so i think i get that the point of volume three is to act as a counterpoint to the first two.

the concept here is that this is an epic break-up record; the first two records are told from the perspective of the singer, whereas large amounts of the third seem to be told from the perspective of the singer's ex-partner. so, the fact that these are alternate takes is perhaps less superfluous than appears initially obvious, as they're also alternate perspectives.

it's still discernibly weaker, on first and second listen - but it could partially be that i'm used to listening to the first two as they are.

as stated before, i need to chew on it further, but it's an open question - if you're going to do a double record from one person's perspective, and include a third volume that largely counters it, is that best presented as a three volume set or as a 2-volume set with an auxiliary? but, then, that's a three volume set in the end, isn't it?