WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.600 Okay, I'm going to take you back to a very specific 00:00:02.600 --> 00:00:06.040 moment in time. Just picture it. It's November 00:00:06.040 --> 00:00:10.619 4th, 1996. Ah, 1996. The mid -90s are just in 00:00:10.619 --> 00:00:12.880 full swing at this point. Exactly. You turn on 00:00:12.880 --> 00:00:14.460 the radio, you're probably hearing the Spice 00:00:14.460 --> 00:00:16.920 Girls, Raya, or maybe Oasis is fighting with 00:00:16.920 --> 00:00:20.899 Blur and the Tabloids. It's that era. But then 00:00:20.899 --> 00:00:25.000 you walk into a record store and you see a new 00:00:25.000 --> 00:00:27.859 CD single on the shelf that... Honestly, it looks 00:00:27.859 --> 00:00:29.960 like a hallucination. It really creates a bit 00:00:29.960 --> 00:00:31.820 of cognitive dissonance when you see those two 00:00:31.820 --> 00:00:33.899 names together. Totally, because on the cover, 00:00:33.979 --> 00:00:36.340 you have two artists who, up until this exact 00:00:36.340 --> 00:00:39.259 moment, existed in completely different universes. 00:00:39.399 --> 00:00:41.520 Completely different. In one corner, you have 00:00:41.520 --> 00:00:43.859 Chris Rea, the guy with that signature gravel 00:00:43.859 --> 00:00:46.439 in his voice, the slide guitar, the man who gave 00:00:46.439 --> 00:00:49.619 us the road to hell. Right, a musician who is... 00:00:49.929 --> 00:00:52.869 Really defined by a very specific type of blues 00:00:52.869 --> 00:00:56.310 rock authenticity. He's very organic, very grounded. 00:00:56.310 --> 00:00:59.030 You don't associate him with glitter or dance 00:00:59.030 --> 00:01:01.109 floors. No, not at all. And then in the other 00:01:01.109 --> 00:01:04.230 corner you have the dame, Shirley Bassey. The 00:01:04.230 --> 00:01:07.569 absolute icon. The voice of Goldfinger, the woman 00:01:07.569 --> 00:01:10.549 who belts out Diamonds Are Forever while wearing 00:01:10.549 --> 00:01:12.709 gowns that probably cost more than my house. 00:01:12.989 --> 00:01:17.890 She is the absolute epitome of high camp, orchestral. 00:01:19.340 --> 00:01:23.120 dramatic pop. I mean, she is show business with 00:01:23.120 --> 00:01:27.260 a capital S. So November 4th, 1996, these two 00:01:27.260 --> 00:01:30.480 titans collide. And what do they give us? It's 00:01:30.480 --> 00:01:32.620 not a blues track. It's not a James Bond theme. 00:01:32.760 --> 00:01:35.620 They release a track called Disco La Passione. 00:01:35.819 --> 00:01:37.920 Which is, and this is where it gets incredibly 00:01:37.920 --> 00:01:41.569 confusing, a dance pop track about disco. written 00:01:41.569 --> 00:01:44.609 by a blues guitarist for a film about Ferraris. 00:01:44.670 --> 00:01:47.109 It is, without a doubt, the single weirdest artifact 00:01:47.109 --> 00:01:49.750 I have come across in a long time. And that right 00:01:49.750 --> 00:01:51.849 there is our mission for this deep dive today. 00:01:52.010 --> 00:01:54.109 It's a fantastic topic. We are going to unpack 00:01:54.109 --> 00:01:56.469 this entire collaboration just to give you a 00:01:56.469 --> 00:01:58.269 quick overview of what we're working with. We've 00:01:58.269 --> 00:02:00.549 got the original documentation regarding the 00:02:00.549 --> 00:02:02.569 singles release, the official credits, which 00:02:02.569 --> 00:02:04.349 are shocking, by the way, and the background 00:02:04.349 --> 00:02:06.189 on the movie that spawned this whole thing. Plus 00:02:06.189 --> 00:02:08.210 the chart performance records, both in the UK 00:02:08.210 --> 00:02:11.250 and across Europe. Right. We really want to understand 00:02:11.250 --> 00:02:14.189 how a massive box office disappointment produced 00:02:14.189 --> 00:02:17.490 this lasting musical oddity. We'll examine the 00:02:17.490 --> 00:02:19.830 specific personnel who actually made it happen, 00:02:20.009 --> 00:02:22.870 and we have to talk about that wild discrepancy 00:02:22.870 --> 00:02:25.770 between its UK and European reception. Because 00:02:25.770 --> 00:02:27.870 it really is a story of two completely different 00:02:27.870 --> 00:02:30.590 markets reacting to the exact same piece of art. 00:02:30.919 --> 00:02:33.699 Exactly. So let's start with the vehicle itself, 00:02:33.759 --> 00:02:35.840 because this wasn't just, you know, a random 00:02:35.840 --> 00:02:38.120 duet Chris Rea decided to record on a Tuesday 00:02:38.120 --> 00:02:41.159 afternoon. This was part of a massive multimedia 00:02:41.159 --> 00:02:44.139 project called La Passion. Yeah. And project 00:02:44.139 --> 00:02:46.219 is definitely the right word here, because this 00:02:46.219 --> 00:02:49.120 was clearly Chris Rea's baby. The source material 00:02:49.120 --> 00:02:52.580 explicitly describes the film La Passion as a 00:02:52.580 --> 00:02:56.240 semi -autobiography written by Rea. Semi -autobiography. 00:02:56.240 --> 00:02:58.379 That is such a loaded term, isn't it? It implies 00:02:58.379 --> 00:03:00.560 he's really putting his soul on the screen. He 00:03:00.560 --> 00:03:03.159 absolutely was. This was not a standard work 00:03:03.159 --> 00:03:05.159 -for -hire soundtrack gig where a studio just 00:03:05.159 --> 00:03:08.000 hands a musician a script. Rea was driving the 00:03:08.000 --> 00:03:10.400 entire narrative. No pun intended with the Ferraris. 00:03:10.460 --> 00:03:13.340 Right. But it was about his childhood fascination 00:03:13.340 --> 00:03:16.699 with motor racing. Specifically, the imagery 00:03:16.699 --> 00:03:20.139 of Wolfgang von Tripps and the 1961 Sharknose 00:03:20.139 --> 00:03:23.099 Ferrari. It's a very personal, very specific, 00:03:23.240 --> 00:03:25.819 almost dreamy landscape that he was trying to 00:03:25.819 --> 00:03:27.860 paint visually. And to paint that landscape, 00:03:28.120 --> 00:03:31.780 he needed a star. And somehow, against all odds, 00:03:31.919 --> 00:03:33.960 he convinced Shirley Bassey to be in the movie. 00:03:34.159 --> 00:03:36.060 And I don't just mean she sang the theme song 00:03:36.060 --> 00:03:38.699 over the closing credits. No. And this is a crucial 00:03:38.699 --> 00:03:40.719 detail that so often gets overlooked when people 00:03:40.719 --> 00:03:43.719 talk about her career. The records show that 00:03:43.719 --> 00:03:46.360 La Paz no, actually mark Shirley Bassey's feature 00:03:46.360 --> 00:03:49.360 film debut. That just blows my mind. It is wild. 00:03:49.580 --> 00:03:51.520 I mean, she had been a global superstar since 00:03:51.520 --> 00:03:53.699 the 1950s. You're telling me she never acted 00:03:53.699 --> 00:03:56.340 in a feature film until 1996. That's right. She'd 00:03:56.340 --> 00:03:58.780 done endless television, concert specials, variety 00:03:58.780 --> 00:04:01.659 shows. She was on TV constantly. But a dramatic 00:04:01.659 --> 00:04:04.979 role in a theatrical feature film? No. This was 00:04:04.979 --> 00:04:07.199 it. Which really speaks to how persuasive Chris 00:04:07.199 --> 00:04:09.039 Rea must have been in those meetings. He must 00:04:09.039 --> 00:04:11.900 have been incredibly passionate. He clearly sold 00:04:11.900 --> 00:04:15.300 her on this grand artistic vision where his music 00:04:15.300 --> 00:04:17.500 and the film would just seamlessly blend together. 00:04:17.779 --> 00:04:21.379 So you've got the blues legend, the diva making 00:04:21.379 --> 00:04:24.839 her acting debut, the semi -autobiographical 00:04:24.839 --> 00:04:28.019 script. I mean, it sounds ambitious. Ambitious 00:04:28.019 --> 00:04:32.189 is certainly one word for it. How did that ambition 00:04:32.189 --> 00:04:35.230 translate to ticket sales? Well, the documentation 00:04:35.230 --> 00:04:37.639 is actually quite brutal on this front. It explicitly 00:04:37.639 --> 00:04:40.420 describes the film as a disappointment at the 00:04:40.420 --> 00:04:42.740 box office. Which is the polite industry way 00:04:42.740 --> 00:04:45.259 of saying it completely bombed. Unfortunately, 00:04:45.339 --> 00:04:48.279 yes. It just didn't connect. It was perhaps too 00:04:48.279 --> 00:04:51.279 niche or maybe too dreamy and abstract. It didn't 00:04:51.279 --> 00:04:54.199 find a mass audience. Right. And usually in the 00:04:54.199 --> 00:04:55.959 entertainment industry, when a vanity project, 00:04:56.220 --> 00:04:58.439 and I use that term loosely, but that's how it 00:04:58.439 --> 00:05:01.339 was seen, fails, it takes everything down with 00:05:01.339 --> 00:05:03.689 it. The movie disappears from theaters, the soundtrack 00:05:03.689 --> 00:05:06.170 gets deleted from the catalog, and everyone involved 00:05:06.170 --> 00:05:08.290 just quietly pretends it never happened. But 00:05:08.290 --> 00:05:10.329 that is the magic of the music industry versus 00:05:10.329 --> 00:05:12.550 the film industry. A movie can be pulled from 00:05:12.550 --> 00:05:16.470 theaters in a week, but a song, a song is slippery. 00:05:16.529 --> 00:05:19.250 It can escape the wreckage. Exactly. The soundtrack 00:05:19.250 --> 00:05:21.629 artifact often separates itself entirely from 00:05:21.629 --> 00:05:23.610 the movie artifact, and that is exactly what 00:05:23.610 --> 00:05:25.709 happened here. Despite the film's total failure, 00:05:26.050 --> 00:05:29.589 the label, East West Records, decided to pivot. 00:05:30.110 --> 00:05:32.829 They pushed the single anyway. So let's get into 00:05:32.829 --> 00:05:36.209 the track itself. Disco La Passione. We've called 00:05:36.209 --> 00:05:38.610 it dance pop based on the sources, and the title 00:05:38.610 --> 00:05:41.110 literally has the word disco right there in quotes. 00:05:41.550 --> 00:05:43.589 But when you actually look at the liner notes. 00:05:44.089 --> 00:05:46.850 This is not your normal disco track. Not at all. 00:05:46.930 --> 00:05:48.870 I mean, if you were looking at a standard dance 00:05:48.870 --> 00:05:52.610 track from 1996, say something by Jamiroquai 00:05:52.610 --> 00:05:55.250 or the Spice Girls, you would see a long list 00:05:55.250 --> 00:05:58.689 of session musicians, synth programmers, maybe 00:05:58.689 --> 00:06:00.769 a specific producer who is famous for making 00:06:00.769 --> 00:06:03.250 dance beats. Right. A whole team of club specialists. 00:06:03.550 --> 00:06:05.860 But look at the credits here. Look at who was 00:06:05.860 --> 00:06:07.759 actually playing the instruments on this dance 00:06:07.759 --> 00:06:09.680 track. This is where Chris Ray's involvement 00:06:09.680 --> 00:06:12.899 goes from passionate songwriter to obsessive 00:06:12.899 --> 00:06:15.939 creator because the credits list Chris Ray on 00:06:15.939 --> 00:06:18.579 bass, Chris Ray on drums, Chris Ray on guitars, 00:06:18.879 --> 00:06:21.240 and Chris Ray on keyboards. He is the rhythm 00:06:21.240 --> 00:06:23.160 section. He's the entire band. He is. He's a 00:06:23.160 --> 00:06:25.480 one -man band on a disco track. That just stops 00:06:25.480 --> 00:06:28.620 me in my tracks every time I read it. You have 00:06:28.620 --> 00:06:32.060 Chris Ray, the Road to Hell guy. Literally sitting 00:06:32.060 --> 00:06:35.379 behind a drum kit in the studio laying down a 00:06:35.379 --> 00:06:37.480 four -on -the -floor disco beat. It's incredible. 00:06:37.759 --> 00:06:39.920 Yeah. And it creates a really fascinating sonic 00:06:39.920 --> 00:06:42.699 texture. Because Chris Rea is not a trained disco 00:06:42.699 --> 00:06:44.519 drummer. He's a rock and blues musician. Yeah, 00:06:44.600 --> 00:06:47.519 totally a different feel. Exactly. When a session 00:06:47.519 --> 00:06:49.680 drummer plays disco, they play with a certain 00:06:49.680 --> 00:06:52.439 snap, a certain looseness in the hi -hats. Rea 00:06:52.439 --> 00:06:54.800 plays it. Well, he plays it like a songwriter 00:06:54.800 --> 00:06:57.500 building a track layer by layer in a studio. 00:06:57.720 --> 00:07:00.439 So it has a different energy? Precisely. It gives 00:07:00.439 --> 00:07:03.759 the track a slightly rigid, almost muscular feel 00:07:03.759 --> 00:07:06.459 you just don't get in highly polished club records. 00:07:06.600 --> 00:07:09.720 It sounds handmade. Handmade disco. I love that. 00:07:09.800 --> 00:07:12.180 So you had this handmade, slightly stiff rhythm 00:07:12.180 --> 00:07:14.740 section built from the ground up by a blues guitarist, 00:07:14.759 --> 00:07:17.199 but he wasn't alone in the studio. No, he wasn't. 00:07:17.199 --> 00:07:19.019 And this is where the clack of worlds really 00:07:19.019 --> 00:07:22.180 happens on the record. You have Rhea down in 00:07:22.180 --> 00:07:24.759 the engine room providing the groove, but the 00:07:24.759 --> 00:07:28.300 single explicitly credits Shirley Bassey as... 00:07:28.569 --> 00:07:30.389 A co -performer. And the source notes mention 00:07:30.389 --> 00:07:33.209 that that's unusual for Bassey. Very unusual. 00:07:33.550 --> 00:07:38.009 It implies a true partnership. Usually, she is 00:07:38.009 --> 00:07:40.430 the undeniable star and the backing band is just, 00:07:40.529 --> 00:07:42.689 you know, wallpaper. Right. They're just there 00:07:42.689 --> 00:07:45.670 to support her. Exactly. But here, she's sharing 00:07:45.670 --> 00:07:47.829 the billing directly with him. And to make it 00:07:47.829 --> 00:07:49.990 even bigger, to really push it over the top, 00:07:50.110 --> 00:07:52.389 they didn't just use a cheap synthesizer for 00:07:52.389 --> 00:07:54.370 the strings. No, they brought in the heavy artillery. 00:07:54.959 --> 00:07:56.759 They brought in the Gavin Wright Film Orchestra. 00:07:57.000 --> 00:07:59.779 Conducted by Max Middleton. So try to visualize 00:07:59.779 --> 00:08:01.759 this incredible stack of sound for a second. 00:08:01.860 --> 00:08:04.519 Okay. At the very bottom, you've got Chris Wray 00:08:04.519 --> 00:08:07.240 playing bass and drums by himself. The handmade 00:08:07.240 --> 00:08:10.620 groove. Right. Then in the middle, filling out 00:08:10.620 --> 00:08:14.160 the frequency spectrum, you have a massive, lush, 00:08:14.459 --> 00:08:18.100 wildly expensive film orchestra. Sweeping strings. 00:08:18.459 --> 00:08:20.839 Sweeping strings. And then on the very top, Shirley 00:08:20.839 --> 00:08:24.500 Bassey giving it full, dramatic. diva vocals. 00:08:24.699 --> 00:08:27.779 It's a Frankenstein's monster of a song. It really 00:08:27.779 --> 00:08:30.040 is. It's combining three things that really shouldn't 00:08:30.040 --> 00:08:32.860 work together at all. You've got blues rock musicianship, 00:08:32.879 --> 00:08:35.600 film score orchestration and dance pop camp. 00:08:35.840 --> 00:08:40.120 And yet somehow it has this weird undeniable 00:08:40.120 --> 00:08:43.320 charm. It actually captures the passion of the 00:08:43.320 --> 00:08:45.919 title because it just feels so earnest. Yeah 00:08:45.919 --> 00:08:48.159 it's not cynical. Not at all. They were making 00:08:48.159 --> 00:08:50.940 a joke. They really went for it. Okay, so the 00:08:50.940 --> 00:08:53.820 label, East West Records, they have this track. 00:08:54.440 --> 00:08:57.320 The movie has completely flopped, but they believe 00:08:57.320 --> 00:08:59.940 in the song. How do they actually sell this to 00:08:59.940 --> 00:09:02.600 the public in 1996? That's the challenge, isn't 00:09:02.600 --> 00:09:04.500 it? Because we have to remember, you couldn't 00:09:04.500 --> 00:09:06.340 just throw it on a Spotify playlist and see if 00:09:06.340 --> 00:09:08.279 the algorithm liked it. You had to convince people 00:09:08.279 --> 00:09:10.379 to walk into a shop, pull out their wallets, 00:09:10.379 --> 00:09:12.870 and buy a physical disc. The release strategy 00:09:12.870 --> 00:09:15.269 here is fascinating because you can see the label 00:09:15.269 --> 00:09:18.210 trying to cover every possible demographic to 00:09:18.210 --> 00:09:20.549 recoup their losses. They didn't just release 00:09:20.549 --> 00:09:23.149 the song. They released a whole toolkit. I was 00:09:23.149 --> 00:09:25.029 looking at the format lists in the documentation. 00:09:25.470 --> 00:09:30.809 There was a European CD, a UK Maxi CD, a 12 -inch 00:09:30.809 --> 00:09:33.289 vinyl. What is the difference between all these 00:09:33.289 --> 00:09:35.870 versions? So the European two -track CD contained 00:09:35.870 --> 00:09:37.830 what they called the film version. That one is 00:09:37.830 --> 00:09:40.370 just under five minutes long. Okay, so 4 .54 00:09:40.370 --> 00:09:42.559 to be exact. Right. And that's the orchestral 00:09:42.559 --> 00:09:45.120 cinematic experience. It's the song as it was 00:09:45.120 --> 00:09:47.820 largely intended for the movie. But that European 00:09:47.820 --> 00:09:50.840 CD also included the Adams and Gehlen 12 -inch 00:09:50.840 --> 00:09:53.460 mix, which runs over five minutes. Adams and 00:09:53.460 --> 00:09:55.700 Gehlen. Now that sounds like a production team 00:09:55.700 --> 00:09:58.019 aimed squarely at the nightclubs. Exactly. That 00:09:58.019 --> 00:10:00.019 mix is extended. It'd have longer intros and 00:10:00.019 --> 00:10:03.159 outros. It's explicitly designed for a club DJ 00:10:03.159 --> 00:10:05.559 to mix in and out of their set. And the UK version 00:10:05.559 --> 00:10:08.179 had even more stuff on it, right? It did. The 00:10:08.179 --> 00:10:11.080 UK Maxi CD and the 12 -inch vinyl included the 00:10:11.080 --> 00:10:13.860 film version, the 12 -inch mix. But they also 00:10:13.860 --> 00:10:16.860 added the Adams and Gehlen 7 -inch mix, which 00:10:16.860 --> 00:10:19.320 is a shorter three -minute radio edit and an 00:10:19.320 --> 00:10:22.440 instrumental track called Horses. Horses. I just 00:10:22.440 --> 00:10:25.220 love 90s B -side titles. They're great. But if 00:10:25.220 --> 00:10:27.159 you look at the intent behind that track list, 00:10:27.240 --> 00:10:29.779 it tells a story. The film version is for the 00:10:29.779 --> 00:10:32.399 dedicated Chris Rea fans and the few people who 00:10:32.399 --> 00:10:34.320 might have actually seen the movie. Right. For 00:10:34.320 --> 00:10:36.860 those Adams and Geelan remixes, those are a targeted 00:10:36.860 --> 00:10:39.299 weapon aimed directly at the dance floor. The 00:10:39.299 --> 00:10:41.600 label was explicitly trying to manufacture a 00:10:41.600 --> 00:10:44.340 club hit out of a failed film soundtrack. They 00:10:44.340 --> 00:10:46.580 were trying to strip the whole box office flop 00:10:46.580 --> 00:10:48.820 stigma away from the song and just make it a 00:10:48.820 --> 00:10:51.639 standalone banger. Precisely. They wanted it 00:10:51.639 --> 00:10:53.919 to exist independently, where people dancing 00:10:53.919 --> 00:10:56.220 wouldn't even know or care about the movie. So 00:10:56.220 --> 00:10:57.940 that brings us to the million dollar question. 00:10:59.159 --> 00:11:02.289 Did it work? Did the dance floors of the world 00:11:02.289 --> 00:11:06.409 actually embrace this Rhea Bassey disco experiment? 00:11:06.789 --> 00:11:09.330 This is where we get a tale of two distinct markets. 00:11:09.549 --> 00:11:12.009 It's actually quite a stark contrast in the data. 00:11:12.149 --> 00:11:13.750 Let's start with the good news. Where did it 00:11:13.750 --> 00:11:16.110 actually land? The good news is that the European 00:11:16.110 --> 00:11:19.029 strategy largely worked. The single is described 00:11:19.029 --> 00:11:21.490 in the sources as having sold well on the continent. 00:11:22.110 --> 00:11:24.929 Specifically, it cracked the top 40 in both the 00:11:24.929 --> 00:11:27.529 Dutch charts and the Belgian charts. OK, so the 00:11:27.529 --> 00:11:29.389 Dutch and the Belgians picked up on it. They 00:11:29.389 --> 00:11:31.629 understood the assignment. There is often a greater 00:11:31.629 --> 00:11:34.309 appreciation for that specific mix of orchestral 00:11:34.309 --> 00:11:37.429 melodrama and heavy dance beats in mainland Europe. 00:11:37.570 --> 00:11:39.690 It found its audience there. That makes sense. 00:11:39.909 --> 00:11:42.769 Eurodance was massive. But then we have to look 00:11:42.769 --> 00:11:46.259 closer to home. The UK. I mean, Chris Wray is 00:11:46.259 --> 00:11:49.259 British. Shirley Bassey is a British institution. 00:11:49.600 --> 00:11:51.600 This really should have been a homecoming victory 00:11:51.600 --> 00:11:53.840 lap for both of them. It should have been. And 00:11:53.840 --> 00:11:57.340 instead, it resulted in a statistic that is genuinely 00:11:57.340 --> 00:11:59.860 heartbreaking if you follow the mechanics of 00:11:59.860 --> 00:12:02.179 music charts. Lay it on us. What happened? In 00:12:02.179 --> 00:12:06.000 the UK singles chart, Disco La Passione peaked 00:12:06.000 --> 00:12:09.679 at number 41. Number 41. Number 41. Oh, that 00:12:09.679 --> 00:12:12.799 stings so much. It really does. For anyone listening 00:12:12.799 --> 00:12:15.080 who maybe didn't grow up obsessed with the Sunday 00:12:15.080 --> 00:12:17.200 chart show on the radio, you have to explain 00:12:17.200 --> 00:12:20.620 why 41 is infinitely worse than, say, landing 00:12:20.620 --> 00:12:23.039 at number 50. It is the psychological cliff edge 00:12:23.039 --> 00:12:25.500 of the music industry. Yeah. The top 40 is the 00:12:25.500 --> 00:12:28.539 golden circle. If you are in the top 40, you 00:12:28.539 --> 00:12:31.019 get played on the BBC Radio 1 chart show, which 00:12:31.019 --> 00:12:32.740 is the most important radio show in the country 00:12:32.740 --> 00:12:35.600 for a pop artist. You get the exposure. Exactly. 00:12:35.600 --> 00:12:37.820 You get printed in the main section of the music 00:12:37.820 --> 00:12:41.379 magazines. You are officially, undeniably a hit. 00:12:41.539 --> 00:12:44.500 And if you are number 41? You are totally invisible. 00:12:44.759 --> 00:12:47.899 You literally just missed the cutoff. It means 00:12:47.899 --> 00:12:50.200 you sold records, people did buy it, but you 00:12:50.200 --> 00:12:52.960 fell short by perhaps just a few hundred copies. 00:12:53.460 --> 00:12:55.519 It's the difference between being part of the 00:12:55.519 --> 00:12:58.129 national conversation. and being written off 00:12:58.129 --> 00:12:59.950 as a flop. It's like running a full marathon 00:12:59.950 --> 00:13:02.789 and tripping over your shoelaces one single inch 00:13:02.789 --> 00:13:04.710 before the finish line. That's a perfect analogy. 00:13:05.330 --> 00:13:07.730 And considering the movie had already flopped, 00:13:07.750 --> 00:13:10.330 that number 41 position must have felt like a 00:13:10.330 --> 00:13:12.830 final insult from the universe. Yeah, a double 00:13:12.830 --> 00:13:16.110 failure. Right. The visual project failed, and 00:13:16.110 --> 00:13:19.070 the audio project missed the benchmark by a single 00:13:19.070 --> 00:13:23.029 digit. That is brutal. But, and this is the twist 00:13:23.029 --> 00:13:24.629 that I really love about this deep dive today, 00:13:24.710 --> 00:13:27.110 we are still talking about it. The story didn't 00:13:27.110 --> 00:13:29.990 end at number 41. And more importantly, Shirley 00:13:29.990 --> 00:13:33.129 Bassey didn't bury the song. She certainly didn't. 00:13:33.149 --> 00:13:35.669 And I think this speaks volumes about her instincts 00:13:35.669 --> 00:13:38.230 as a live performer. Chart positions are temporary, 00:13:38.309 --> 00:13:40.950 but repertoire is forever, right? Exactly. The 00:13:40.950 --> 00:13:42.990 sources note that she performed the song frequently 00:13:42.990 --> 00:13:46.730 live during 1996 and 1997. She actually kept 00:13:46.730 --> 00:13:49.649 it in the set list. Even after the chart disappointment. 00:13:50.029 --> 00:13:52.549 She did. And she didn't just play it at obscure 00:13:52.549 --> 00:13:55.870 small gigs either. A live recording of the song 00:13:55.870 --> 00:13:59.669 was immortalized on her 1997 CD, The Birthday 00:13:59.669 --> 00:14:03.149 Concert. Now that is a seal of approval right 00:14:03.149 --> 00:14:05.389 there. Definitely. You do not put a song on a 00:14:05.389 --> 00:14:07.889 major milestone live album if you're ashamed 00:14:07.889 --> 00:14:10.690 of it. Exactly. She must have recognized that 00:14:10.690 --> 00:14:13.450 regardless of the chart number, the song worked 00:14:13.450 --> 00:14:15.490 with a live audience. It got a reaction in the 00:14:15.490 --> 00:14:18.139 room. And they had the music video too. Which 00:14:18.139 --> 00:14:19.679 I think is an interesting piece of the puzzle 00:14:19.679 --> 00:14:22.419 because of how it repurposed the film. Yes. The 00:14:22.419 --> 00:14:24.700 music video was composed entirely of performance 00:14:24.700 --> 00:14:27.539 footage taken directly from the film. So in a 00:14:27.539 --> 00:14:29.580 weird way, the best looking parts of the movie. 00:14:29.700 --> 00:14:32.639 The lighting, the costumes, the drama. Right. 00:14:32.700 --> 00:14:34.740 All of that was preserved and repackaged in the 00:14:34.740 --> 00:14:36.639 music video. It's almost like a lifeboat for 00:14:36.639 --> 00:14:39.220 the visuals. The movie itself sinks at the box 00:14:39.220 --> 00:14:42.039 office, but the video rafts away to safety on 00:14:42.039 --> 00:14:44.620 MTV. That's a great way to put it. It allowed 00:14:44.620 --> 00:14:46.679 the visual aesthetic of La Passion to survive. 00:14:47.320 --> 00:14:49.720 even if the cinematic narrative didn't. I want 00:14:49.720 --> 00:14:51.799 to zoom out a bit here because we've been deep 00:14:51.799 --> 00:14:55.440 in the weeds of 1996, but I want to look at where 00:14:55.440 --> 00:14:58.580 this song actually sits in the massive decades 00:14:58.580 --> 00:15:01.179 -long careers of these two people. It's important 00:15:01.179 --> 00:15:04.000 context. Because when I look at Chris Rea's discography, 00:15:04.259 --> 00:15:06.960 this song sticks out like a sore thumb. It is 00:15:06.960 --> 00:15:10.379 a profound outlier. If you think about his absolute 00:15:10.379 --> 00:15:13.480 pillars, The Road to Hell, A Burge, On the Beach, 00:15:13.600 --> 00:15:16.340 these are songs defined by atmosphere, by the 00:15:16.340 --> 00:15:18.600 blues, by that slide guitar. They're driving 00:15:18.600 --> 00:15:20.840 songs. Driving Home for Christmas is the ultimate 00:15:20.840 --> 00:15:24.059 example. It's warm, fuzzy, comforting rock. Exactly. 00:15:24.240 --> 00:15:26.600 And then you have La Passione, a disco -themed 00:15:26.600 --> 00:15:29.220 film soundtrack where he locks himself in a studio 00:15:29.220 --> 00:15:31.840 and plays everything himself. It shows a side 00:15:31.840 --> 00:15:33.820 of Rhea that the casual listener might never 00:15:33.820 --> 00:15:36.409 expect. A willingness to just experiment. Right. 00:15:36.450 --> 00:15:38.889 To step completely outside his established brand 00:15:38.889 --> 00:15:42.149 to chase a very specific, weird idea. Do you 00:15:42.149 --> 00:15:44.269 think that's why it remains so interesting to 00:15:44.269 --> 00:15:46.610 music historians? Because it's Chris Rea just 00:15:46.610 --> 00:15:49.769 refusing to be boxed in as the blues guy. I think 00:15:49.769 --> 00:15:52.129 so. It creates this fascinating tension in the 00:15:52.129 --> 00:15:54.370 music. You can hear his musical DNA in the production 00:15:54.370 --> 00:15:56.149 like we talked about with that rigid bass playing. 00:15:56.409 --> 00:15:58.690 But the outer rapper of the song is completely 00:15:58.690 --> 00:16:03.840 alien to him. And then for Shirley Bassey. Well, 00:16:03.840 --> 00:16:05.700 looking back from where we are now, this track 00:16:05.700 --> 00:16:07.740 feels like a bit of a foreshadowing, doesn't 00:16:07.740 --> 00:16:11.600 it? It really does. In 1996, Bassey was at a 00:16:11.600 --> 00:16:13.240 point in her career where she could have easily 00:16:13.240 --> 00:16:15.840 just become a heritage act. You know, just singing 00:16:15.840 --> 00:16:19.039 Goldfinger on cruise ships or at Royal Variety 00:16:19.039 --> 00:16:21.539 performances forever. Resting on her laurels. 00:16:21.639 --> 00:16:26.759 Exactly. But Disco La Passione. proved she could 00:16:26.759 --> 00:16:29.620 handle a modern electronic beat it showed she 00:16:29.620 --> 00:16:31.940 wasn't afraid of the dance floor precisely and 00:16:31.940 --> 00:16:33.720 if you look at what she did right after this 00:16:33.720 --> 00:16:36.639 specifically her collaboration on the track history 00:16:36.639 --> 00:16:38.519 repeating with the propeller heads oh history 00:16:38.519 --> 00:16:40.879 repeating is an absolute banger that is peak 00:16:40.879 --> 00:16:44.340 late 90s big beat it's iconic and even later 00:16:44.340 --> 00:16:47.240 her cover of pink's get the party started. But 00:16:47.240 --> 00:16:49.639 Disco La Passione was really the testing ground 00:16:49.639 --> 00:16:52.159 for all of that. It bridged the gap between the 00:16:52.159 --> 00:16:55.000 classic orchestral diva from the 60s and the 00:16:55.000 --> 00:16:57.899 modern dance floor Shirley we saw in the late 00:16:57.899 --> 00:17:00.240 90s and 2000s. So even though it was technically 00:17:00.240 --> 00:17:03.440 a flop by UK chart standards at number 41, it 00:17:03.440 --> 00:17:05.680 might have been strategically vital for her longevity. 00:17:06.019 --> 00:17:08.359 It kept her contemporary. It put her voice in 00:17:08.359 --> 00:17:11.079 modern clubs. Even it was via the Adams and Gehlen 00:17:11.079 --> 00:17:13.880 remix. And most importantly, it introduced her 00:17:13.880 --> 00:17:16.440 to a new generation that maybe didn't grow up 00:17:16.440 --> 00:17:18.900 watching the classic Bond films. So let's recap 00:17:18.900 --> 00:17:21.460 this wild ride. We start with a semi -autobiographical 00:17:21.460 --> 00:17:24.220 film by Chris Wray about his childhood dreams 00:17:24.220 --> 00:17:27.960 and Ferraris that sadly just bombs at the box 00:17:27.960 --> 00:17:30.279 office. A passion project that just didn't find 00:17:30.279 --> 00:17:33.140 its visual audience. But from that absolute wreckage, 00:17:33.160 --> 00:17:35.640 we get a single where Chris Wray acts like a 00:17:35.640 --> 00:17:38.799 one -man studio wizard playing drums, bass, guitar, 00:17:39.039 --> 00:17:41.500 and keys while simultaneously backing a legendary 00:17:41.500 --> 00:17:44.309 diva and a massive film orchestra. A song that 00:17:44.309 --> 00:17:46.450 the Europeans danced to all the way into their 00:17:46.450 --> 00:17:49.250 top 40, but the UK heartbreakingly left stranded 00:17:49.250 --> 00:17:52.029 at number 41. A commercial near miss that nonetheless 00:17:52.029 --> 00:17:54.869 survived in live performances and on concert 00:17:54.869 --> 00:17:57.890 albums for years to come. It's such a weird, 00:17:57.930 --> 00:18:01.289 wonderful little story. It really makes me respect 00:18:01.289 --> 00:18:04.309 La Pessione as a creative project, even if the 00:18:04.309 --> 00:18:07.630 movie itself didn't work. It stands as a testament 00:18:07.630 --> 00:18:10.990 to just taking a massive artistic risk. Absolutely. 00:18:11.170 --> 00:18:13.759 It brought together cinema, orchestra, dance 00:18:13.759 --> 00:18:16.880 pop, and two very, very different musical legends. 00:18:16.960 --> 00:18:18.779 That is not something you see every day. No, 00:18:18.779 --> 00:18:20.400 it's not. And you know, that leads me to something 00:18:20.400 --> 00:18:22.480 I've been thinking about while we've been talking 00:18:22.480 --> 00:18:24.420 through all these sources today. What's that? 00:18:24.660 --> 00:18:27.759 We label things as failures or flops so easily 00:18:27.759 --> 00:18:30.539 in this industry. The movie flopped. The single 00:18:30.539 --> 00:18:32.859 missed the top 40. Right. By the hard metrics 00:18:32.859 --> 00:18:34.920 of the business, yes, they failed. But the music 00:18:34.920 --> 00:18:37.819 survived. It found a life in Dutch clubs and 00:18:37.819 --> 00:18:41.230 on live stages with Shirley Bassey. So here is 00:18:41.230 --> 00:18:43.769 the question I want to love you with today. If 00:18:43.769 --> 00:18:46.589 a film bombs, but the music from it takes on 00:18:46.589 --> 00:18:49.890 a life of its own, was the project actually a 00:18:49.890 --> 00:18:52.930 failure? That is the question. Or did the art 00:18:52.930 --> 00:18:56.529 just find the wrong medium initially? Maybe the 00:18:56.529 --> 00:18:58.490 story of La Passion wasn't meant for the screen 00:18:58.490 --> 00:19:00.410 at all. Maybe it was always meant for the speakers. 00:19:00.849 --> 00:19:03.829 It's a great reminder that art often finds its 00:19:03.829 --> 00:19:06.849 audience. Even if it's not the one or the format 00:19:06.849 --> 00:19:09.329 the creator originally intended, sometimes the 00:19:09.329 --> 00:19:11.769 souvenir is worth way more than the trip itself. 00:19:12.049 --> 00:19:13.869 Something to chew on the next time you hear a 00:19:13.869 --> 00:19:16.029 track that makes you go, wait, who is playing 00:19:16.029 --> 00:19:18.289 the drums on this? Thanks for taking this deep 00:19:18.289 --> 00:19:20.609 dive with us today. A pleasure as always. See 00:19:20.609 --> 00:19:21.250 you on the next one.