WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.259 The deep dive, the anatomy of it's all right 00:00:03.259 --> 00:00:05.719 music history and top culture across decades. 00:00:05.879 --> 00:00:08.480 What can a single phrase tell us about the evolution 00:00:08.480 --> 00:00:11.039 of modern music? In this deep dive, we unpack 00:00:11.039 --> 00:00:14.080 a surprisingly dense Wikipedia disambiguation 00:00:14.080 --> 00:00:16.859 page to trace the cultural footprint of the phrase, 00:00:17.199 --> 00:00:20.260 it's all right and it's all right. From 1960s 00:00:20.260 --> 00:00:22.420 jazz and soul, Ray Charles, The Impressions, 00:00:22.940 --> 00:00:26.260 to 90s hip -hop, Jay -Z, Queen Latifah, through 00:00:26.260 --> 00:00:28.640 heavy metal, Black Sabbath, and all the way to 00:00:28.640 --> 00:00:30.899 modern animation, we explore how this universal 00:00:30.899 --> 00:00:33.100 sentiment of reassurance has been adapted by 00:00:33.100 --> 00:00:35.880 almost every genre imaginable. Join us as we 00:00:35.880 --> 00:00:38.259 connect the dots between B -sides, indie anthems, 00:00:38.420 --> 00:00:41.280 and global pockets, uncovering the hidden patterns 00:00:41.280 --> 00:00:44.310 in music history. Keywords music history pop 00:00:44.310 --> 00:00:47.689 culture wikipedia disambiguation song analysis 00:00:47.689 --> 00:00:50.710 classic rock 90s hip hop jazz albums. It's all 00:00:50.710 --> 00:00:52.689 right Welcome to the Deep Tide. We are jumping 00:00:52.689 --> 00:00:55.130 right into something that, at first glance, might 00:00:55.130 --> 00:00:56.990 seem like an incredibly strange artifact to spend 00:00:56.990 --> 00:00:58.770 time analyzing. Definitely. Yeah. I mean, we 00:00:58.770 --> 00:01:00.350 aren't looking at a profound piece of classic 00:01:00.350 --> 00:01:02.409 literature today or a newly declassified historical 00:01:02.409 --> 00:01:04.829 document. No, no. We are looking at a Wikipedia 00:01:04.829 --> 00:01:07.870 disambiguation page. Which sounds completely 00:01:07.870 --> 00:01:12.049 mundane on paper. Right. Specifically, the disambiguation 00:01:12.049 --> 00:01:15.629 page for the phrase, it's all right, along with 00:01:15.629 --> 00:01:17.390 its, you know, grammatically separated sibling, 00:01:17.530 --> 00:01:19.950 it's all right. To my words, yeah. Exactly. And 00:01:19.950 --> 00:01:23.489 the mission for this deep dive is to basically 00:01:23.489 --> 00:01:27.769 excavate the cultural, psychological, and music 00:01:27.769 --> 00:01:30.189 history hidden within this single webpage. Which 00:01:30.189 --> 00:01:33.390 is surprisingly vast. It is. We want to understand 00:01:33.390 --> 00:01:36.730 how one staggeringly simple sentiment spans from 00:01:36.730 --> 00:01:40.620 1963 all the way up to 2021. crossing basically 00:01:40.620 --> 00:01:43.260 every genre boundary imaginable. From jazz to 00:01:43.260 --> 00:01:46.719 heavy metal, from 90s hip hop to children's movies. 00:01:47.260 --> 00:01:49.680 We really want to figure out why this exact combination 00:01:49.680 --> 00:01:52.299 of words is the most persistent emotional anchor 00:01:52.299 --> 00:01:54.819 in modern pop culture. Well, the premise of looking 00:01:54.819 --> 00:01:57.219 at a disambiguation page is really what makes 00:01:57.219 --> 00:01:59.620 this entire exercise worthwhile, I think. How 00:01:59.620 --> 00:02:02.599 so? Because a Wikipedia disambiguation page is 00:02:02.599 --> 00:02:04.900 designed to be completely utilitarian. It's the 00:02:04.900 --> 00:02:08.139 Internet's traffic cop. It exists solely to catch 00:02:08.139 --> 00:02:11.219 you when you type in a vague search term and 00:02:11.219 --> 00:02:13.639 then point you toward the specific destination 00:02:13.639 --> 00:02:15.819 you actually intended to reach. Yeah, it's just 00:02:15.819 --> 00:02:18.919 a directory. Exactly. But when you stop treating 00:02:18.919 --> 00:02:22.259 it as this brief layover and instead look at 00:02:22.259 --> 00:02:26.000 the page comprehensively, the whole list, it 00:02:26.000 --> 00:02:28.039 transforms. It becomes something else entirely. 00:02:28.240 --> 00:02:30.960 Right. It stops being a directory. and becomes 00:02:30.960 --> 00:02:33.599 a sociological timeline. And right off the bat, 00:02:33.680 --> 00:02:36.080 you can see the footprint of this phrase globally. 00:02:36.319 --> 00:02:38.319 Oh, the languages. Yeah, the source page notes. 00:02:38.439 --> 00:02:40.500 It's available in five different languages. We've 00:02:40.500 --> 00:02:44.830 got Deutsch, Francais. Italiano, Toyo, represented 00:02:44.830 --> 00:02:47.530 by the kanji, of course, and Netherlands. Wow. 00:02:47.729 --> 00:02:49.870 So we're dealing with an English colloquialism, 00:02:49.930 --> 00:02:52.569 yet the sentiment is so fundamentally necessary 00:02:52.569 --> 00:02:55.389 that it requires cataloging across all these 00:02:55.389 --> 00:02:58.389 major linguistic and cultural divides. It's basically 00:02:58.389 --> 00:03:01.069 an index of human reassurance. That is a perfect 00:03:01.069 --> 00:03:03.789 way to put it. Well, I want to ask you, the listener, 00:03:04.530 --> 00:03:06.569 to run a quick thought experiment with us right 00:03:06.569 --> 00:03:09.849 now. If you close your eyes and just summon the 00:03:09.849 --> 00:03:13.860 phrase. It's a fache. As a piece of music in 00:03:13.860 --> 00:03:16.319 your head, what is the soundtrack playing behind 00:03:16.319 --> 00:03:18.599 it? That's a great question. Right. Are you hearing 00:03:18.599 --> 00:03:22.759 a smooth, heavily produced 90s R &B vocal? Are 00:03:22.759 --> 00:03:26.159 you hearing a gritty, distorted 70s guitar riff? 00:03:26.280 --> 00:03:29.300 Or maybe a 60s soul anthem with a massive horn 00:03:29.300 --> 00:03:32.219 section? Exactly. And the wild thing about the 00:03:32.219 --> 00:03:34.240 timeline we're about to walk through is that 00:03:34.240 --> 00:03:36.699 no matter what genre you just pulled from your 00:03:36.699 --> 00:03:39.199 own internal catalog. You are probably correct. 00:03:39.319 --> 00:03:42.819 Yeah. The sheer volume of artists who have stared 00:03:42.819 --> 00:03:45.639 at a blank piece of paper and decided that it's 00:03:45.639 --> 00:03:47.539 alright was the definitive message they needed 00:03:47.539 --> 00:03:50.639 to broadcast is just staggering. It really is. 00:03:50.759 --> 00:03:52.639 And to understand why. We really need to start 00:03:52.639 --> 00:03:54.979 in the 1960s because the way the phrase is used 00:03:54.979 --> 00:03:57.500 there basically sets up a baseline for everything 00:03:57.500 --> 00:04:00.719 that follows. The 1960s entries on this timeline, 00:04:00.719 --> 00:04:02.879 they provide this sort of master class in the 00:04:02.879 --> 00:04:04.860 evolution of language. Oh, you mean the spelling 00:04:04.860 --> 00:04:07.120 divide? Yes, specifically the spelling divide 00:04:07.120 --> 00:04:09.560 that sits right at the top of the page. The phrase 00:04:09.560 --> 00:04:12.900 is structurally fractured. You have the grammatically 00:04:12.900 --> 00:04:16.540 traditional two word spelling. All right. A -L 00:04:16.540 --> 00:04:21.279 -L space R -I -G -H -T. Very proper. Right. And 00:04:21.279 --> 00:04:23.399 then you have the colloquial mashed together 00:04:23.399 --> 00:04:26.959 single word spelling. All right. A -L -R -I -G 00:04:26.959 --> 00:04:29.420 -H -T. And looking at the older entries, the 00:04:29.420 --> 00:04:32.439 ones originating in the 1960s, they heavily favor 00:04:32.439 --> 00:04:35.220 that separated. Yeah. It reflects a much more 00:04:35.220 --> 00:04:38.199 formal era of titling art, I think. Yeah. The 00:04:38.199 --> 00:04:41.259 space between those two words represents a kind 00:04:41.259 --> 00:04:44.839 of grammatical decorum that the music industry 00:04:44.839 --> 00:04:47.759 still adhered to back then. Right. But what really 00:04:47.759 --> 00:04:50.060 catches my eye about that 60s formality isn't 00:04:50.060 --> 00:04:51.980 just the space between the words. What is it? 00:04:52.060 --> 00:04:54.709 It's the punctuation. Let's look at the two earliest 00:04:54.709 --> 00:04:57.209 album entries we have on this list. There's Wynton 00:04:57.209 --> 00:05:00.269 Kelly's jazz album from 1964. Great record. And 00:05:00.269 --> 00:05:03.110 Teddy Edward's jazz album from 1967. Also great. 00:05:03.470 --> 00:05:05.850 They are titled identically. They use a formal 00:05:05.850 --> 00:05:08.069 two -word spelling, but they both add an exclamation 00:05:08.069 --> 00:05:11.889 point to the end. That exclamation point is carrying 00:05:11.889 --> 00:05:15.350 immense emotional weight. You think so? Oh, absolutely. 00:05:15.430 --> 00:05:17.509 Think about the phrase without it. If someone 00:05:17.509 --> 00:05:21.209 asks how your day was and you reply, it's all 00:05:21.209 --> 00:05:24.360 right. with a period at the end. It implies mediocrity. 00:05:24.560 --> 00:05:26.500 Exactly. It means things are passable, maybe 00:05:26.500 --> 00:05:29.939 slightly underwhelming, but fundamentally adequate. 00:05:30.019 --> 00:05:32.600 Just scraping by. But the moment you introduce 00:05:32.600 --> 00:05:35.759 the exclamation point, it completely ceases to 00:05:35.759 --> 00:05:38.360 be a statement of adequacy. It becomes a joyful, 00:05:38.699 --> 00:05:41.480 exuberant declaration. It becomes a celebration. 00:05:41.720 --> 00:05:46.120 And in the context of 1960s jazz, which is an 00:05:46.120 --> 00:05:48.920 instrumental medium where the emotional narrative 00:05:48.920 --> 00:05:51.829 has to be communicated entirely through piano 00:05:51.829 --> 00:05:54.449 and rhythm. The title is doing heavy lifting. 00:05:54.910 --> 00:05:58.089 Precisely. That punctuation mark sets the listener's 00:05:58.089 --> 00:06:00.329 emotional baseline before the needle even drops 00:06:00.329 --> 00:06:02.569 into the groove. I wonder though if an exclamation 00:06:02.569 --> 00:06:06.000 point is truly a you know, a shout from the mountaintop 00:06:06.000 --> 00:06:07.800 kind of thing. What do you mean? Or if it was 00:06:07.800 --> 00:06:09.920 just a mechanism used by record executives in 00:06:09.920 --> 00:06:13.399 the 60s to inject a sense of manufactured excitement, 00:06:14.120 --> 00:06:16.519 you know, trying to sell jazz records to a culture 00:06:16.519 --> 00:06:18.519 that was rapidly shifting toward rock and roll 00:06:18.519 --> 00:06:21.060 at the time. Does the exclamation point guarantee 00:06:21.060 --> 00:06:24.060 genuine joy or is it just good marketing? That 00:06:24.060 --> 00:06:26.720 is a fascinating distinction to draw. Because 00:06:26.720 --> 00:06:28.620 the music business is still a business. Right? 00:06:28.939 --> 00:06:31.399 And it could absolutely be a marketing mechanism. 00:06:31.899 --> 00:06:34.199 But even if we view it through a cynical lens, 00:06:34.480 --> 00:06:37.220 the underlying strategy is the same. True. The 00:06:37.220 --> 00:06:40.040 label, or the artist, is recognizing that the 00:06:40.040 --> 00:06:42.699 audience is actively seeking an uplift. Yeah, 00:06:42.839 --> 00:06:45.949 they want to feel good. Right. So whether Wynton 00:06:45.949 --> 00:06:49.029 Kelly felt exuberant or his producers just knew 00:06:49.029 --> 00:06:51.790 that an exuberant title would move units, the 00:06:51.790 --> 00:06:54.569 function of the phrase remains entirely unchanged. 00:06:54.970 --> 00:06:57.889 It's deployed to elevate the mood. Exactly. And 00:06:57.889 --> 00:07:00.230 we see that verified when we look at the benchmark 00:07:00.230 --> 00:07:03.110 year on this timeline, which is 1963. Oh, man, 00:07:03.269 --> 00:07:06.589 1963 is huge on this list. That year gives us 00:07:06.589 --> 00:07:09.389 a track literally just titled It's Alright by 00:07:09.389 --> 00:07:11.509 the Impressions. Yes. They use the traditional 00:07:11.509 --> 00:07:13.949 spelling, no exclamation point. just laying it 00:07:13.949 --> 00:07:16.009 out there. The impressions are absolutely vital 00:07:16.009 --> 00:07:18.149 here. They were essentially the architects of 00:07:18.149 --> 00:07:20.990 Chicago soul. Right. And in the early 60s, the 00:07:20.990 --> 00:07:23.509 music coming out of that scene was deeply intertwined 00:07:23.509 --> 00:07:26.110 with gossible traditions. Taking the church to 00:07:26.110 --> 00:07:28.990 the radio. Exactly. The lyrical content wasn't 00:07:28.990 --> 00:07:31.410 just about individual romance, you know, it was 00:07:31.410 --> 00:07:33.589 often designed to uplift a whole congregation 00:07:33.589 --> 00:07:35.990 or a community. So it's bigger than just one 00:07:35.990 --> 00:07:38.529 person feeling OK. Right. When a group like the 00:07:38.529 --> 00:07:41.459 impressions uses the phrase. It's all right. 00:07:41.500 --> 00:07:44.860 They aren't engaging in casual passing conversation. 00:07:45.079 --> 00:07:47.639 They're utilizing a structural pillar of emotional 00:07:47.639 --> 00:07:50.939 support. It is a sonic embrace. They're acting 00:07:50.939 --> 00:07:53.439 as community leaders, basically assuring the 00:07:53.439 --> 00:07:56.019 listener that stability exists. And speaking 00:07:56.019 --> 00:07:58.240 of foundational artists providing that embrace, 00:07:58.920 --> 00:08:02.399 our source list brings up Ray Charles. The genius. 00:08:02.579 --> 00:08:04.740 Yeah. He has a track called It's All Right on 00:08:04.740 --> 00:08:08.129 his album. Yes, indeed. And Ray Charles is the 00:08:08.129 --> 00:08:11.189 guy who basically forged soul music by slamming 00:08:11.189 --> 00:08:14.410 gospel, blues, and jazz together. Right. So for 00:08:14.410 --> 00:08:16.449 him to anchor a track with this specific phrase 00:08:16.449 --> 00:08:18.610 tells me that it is an essential ingredient in 00:08:18.610 --> 00:08:20.990 the recipe of soul music. His usage of the phrase 00:08:20.990 --> 00:08:23.449 perfectly illustrates the power of unadorned 00:08:23.449 --> 00:08:25.529 emotional communication. Unadorned, yeah, I like 00:08:25.529 --> 00:08:28.290 that. Foundational R &B did not rely on dense 00:08:28.290 --> 00:08:30.769 abstract metaphors to connect with an audience. 00:08:30.990 --> 00:08:33.409 It's just straight to the point. The strength 00:08:33.409 --> 00:08:36.559 of it's all right. lies in its absolute simplicity. 00:08:37.100 --> 00:08:39.899 It conveys resilience immediately. Especially 00:08:39.899 --> 00:08:42.639 coming from him. Exactly. When an artist with 00:08:42.639 --> 00:08:45.059 the lived experience and vocal gravity of Ray 00:08:45.059 --> 00:08:47.580 Charles sings those words, it isn't a throwaway 00:08:47.580 --> 00:08:50.019 line. No way. It carries the weight of having 00:08:50.019 --> 00:08:53.440 traversed genuine hardship and standing on the 00:08:53.440 --> 00:08:56.600 other side to report back that survival is actually 00:08:56.600 --> 00:08:58.879 possible. I completely agree with the power of 00:08:58.879 --> 00:09:00.820 that simplicity, which is actually what makes 00:09:00.820 --> 00:09:03.720 an entry from 1966 so fascinating to me. The 00:09:03.720 --> 00:09:06.620 J .J. Jackson track. Yes. We have this artist 00:09:06.620 --> 00:09:09.320 named J .G. Jackson and his track is listed as 00:09:09.320 --> 00:09:12.000 but it's all right. Right. With a note that is 00:09:12.000 --> 00:09:15.080 also known simply as it's all right. Right. He 00:09:15.080 --> 00:09:17.519 actually grafted the word but onto the front 00:09:17.519 --> 00:09:19.879 of this universal mantra. And the addition of 00:09:19.879 --> 00:09:22.460 that conjunction completely shifts the narrative 00:09:22.460 --> 00:09:25.419 framework. It really does. Because it's all right 00:09:25.419 --> 00:09:27.519 is a static observation of the present moment. 00:09:27.720 --> 00:09:30.120 But it's all right is a dynamic story. That's 00:09:30.120 --> 00:09:32.879 interesting. The word but explicitly signals 00:09:32.879 --> 00:09:35.559 a preceding conflict. It demands that the listener 00:09:35.559 --> 00:09:37.500 acknowledge a struggle before the comfort can 00:09:37.500 --> 00:09:39.899 be applied. You don't say, but it's all right, 00:09:40.559 --> 00:09:42.899 unless something bad just happened. Exactly. 00:09:43.399 --> 00:09:45.720 My heart was broken, but it's all right. I lost 00:09:45.720 --> 00:09:48.240 my job, but it's all right. So J .J. Jackson 00:09:48.240 --> 00:09:51.779 basically took a phrase of static comfort and 00:09:51.779 --> 00:09:54.299 weaponized it into a tool for overcoming adversity. 00:09:54.519 --> 00:09:57.120 That's spot on. It's incredible how three letters 00:09:57.120 --> 00:10:00.019 can inject an entire character arc into a song 00:10:00.019 --> 00:10:02.559 title. It is. And perhaps standard reassurance 00:10:02.559 --> 00:10:06.000 just wasn't cutting it anymore by 1966. The culture 00:10:06.000 --> 00:10:08.700 was getting more complicated, you know. So the 00:10:08.700 --> 00:10:10.860 song titles had to reflect a more complicated 00:10:10.860 --> 00:10:13.320 reality. That's a very fair assessment of the 00:10:13.320 --> 00:10:15.639 mid 60s. Now, as we move further down our source 00:10:15.639 --> 00:10:19.139 page, we start seeing the phrase pop up in a 00:10:19.139 --> 00:10:22.389 very specific structural way. within the physical 00:10:22.389 --> 00:10:25.330 music industry. Yes, the B -sides. The list highlights 00:10:25.330 --> 00:10:28.450 this fascinating trend. In 1963, Jerry and the 00:10:28.450 --> 00:10:31.110 pacemakers used It's Alright as the B -side to 00:10:31.110 --> 00:10:34.029 You'll Never Walk Alone. Right. And the Kinks 00:10:34.029 --> 00:10:37.470 used their track It's Alright as the B -side 00:10:37.470 --> 00:10:40.070 to You Really Got Me. This is where we really 00:10:40.070 --> 00:10:42.110 have to look at the psychology of track placement. 00:10:42.309 --> 00:10:44.690 Track placement. Yeah, when an artist or a label 00:10:44.940 --> 00:10:47.259 relegates a song to the B side of a physical 00:10:47.259 --> 00:10:50.360 single, they are making a deliberate statement 00:10:50.360 --> 00:10:53.320 about the emotional utility of that track in 00:10:53.320 --> 00:10:55.980 relation to the main event. Exactly. When you 00:10:55.980 --> 00:10:59.519 relegate a song to the B side, you're explicitly 00:10:59.519 --> 00:11:01.720 telling the listener, this is the come down track. 00:11:01.740 --> 00:11:05.039 Right. You have the adrenaline of, you really 00:11:05.039 --> 00:11:08.950 got me on the A side. which is just pure manic, 00:11:09.450 --> 00:11:11.850 distorted guitar energy. It's a sonic assault. 00:11:11.870 --> 00:11:14.269 That total explosion. And then you have it's 00:11:14.269 --> 00:11:16.750 R8 sitting right underneath it on the flip side 00:11:16.750 --> 00:11:19.269 as the emotional aftercare. And it's the same 00:11:19.269 --> 00:11:21.190 dynamic with Jerry and the pacemakers. Right. 00:11:21.269 --> 00:11:23.769 You'll never walk alone as a colossal, sweeping 00:11:23.769 --> 00:11:27.590 public anthem. It's so massive that entire football 00:11:27.590 --> 00:11:29.769 stadiums sing it to this day. Yes. Then you flip 00:11:29.769 --> 00:11:32.210 the record. Yeah. You get the private, quiet 00:11:32.210 --> 00:11:35.379 reassurance of it's all right. That contrast 00:11:35.379 --> 00:11:38.320 is just brilliant. The A side is the public declaration, 00:11:38.500 --> 00:11:40.500 right? And the B side is the private whisper. 00:11:40.899 --> 00:11:43.080 The artists are taking the listener on a complete 00:11:43.080 --> 00:11:45.039 emotional cycle. They spike your heart rate. 00:11:45.320 --> 00:11:47.840 They command your attention and then they use 00:11:47.840 --> 00:11:50.200 it's all right to safely bring you back down 00:11:50.200 --> 00:11:52.820 to a resting state. So it suggests that the phrase 00:11:52.820 --> 00:11:55.200 itself possesses an inherently grounding quality. 00:11:55.320 --> 00:11:57.860 Exactly. It is the antidote to the chaos of the 00:11:57.860 --> 00:12:01.460 A side. That makes me wonder though, are we romanticizing 00:12:01.460 --> 00:12:04.460 the B side a bit too much here? How do you mean? 00:12:04.779 --> 00:12:10.059 Could it just be that it was a generic throwaway 00:12:10.059 --> 00:12:12.460 sentiment? Something easy to slap on a track 00:12:12.460 --> 00:12:14.779 they didn't really care about just to fill the 00:12:14.779 --> 00:12:17.740 physical space on the vinyl? It's entirely possible 00:12:17.740 --> 00:12:20.700 that some B -sides were filler, yes. But the 00:12:20.700 --> 00:12:23.500 consistency of the phrase contradicts the idea 00:12:23.500 --> 00:12:25.120 that it was meaningless. Because they kept choosing 00:12:25.120 --> 00:12:28.220 it. Exactly. If you are just trying to fill space, 00:12:28.440 --> 00:12:30.990 you can name a track anything. Random words. 00:12:31.509 --> 00:12:34.870 The fact that distinct bands operating in different 00:12:34.870 --> 00:12:37.190 sub -genres of the British Invasion defaulted 00:12:37.190 --> 00:12:40.350 to this specific phrase suggests it was a recognized 00:12:40.350 --> 00:12:42.909 emotional tool. It was part of the toolkit. Even 00:12:42.909 --> 00:12:44.830 if the track was quickly written in the studio, 00:12:45.289 --> 00:12:47.769 the instinct to frame it around reassurance reveals 00:12:47.769 --> 00:12:50.549 what the artist felt the flip side of an explosive 00:12:50.549 --> 00:12:53.110 hit required. And that grounding quality is really 00:12:53.110 --> 00:12:55.250 put to the test when we cross into the 1970s. 00:12:55.409 --> 00:12:58.809 Oh, a huge shift. Yeah, because that collective 00:12:59.129 --> 00:13:01.429 almost architectural use of the phrase in the 00:13:01.429 --> 00:13:05.070 60s, makes the shift we see in the 70s feel a 00:13:05.070 --> 00:13:07.730 bit like whiplash. The consensus of what music 00:13:07.730 --> 00:13:09.669 should sound like essentially shatters in the 00:13:09.669 --> 00:13:11.889 70s. Right. We move away from the soothing sounds 00:13:11.889 --> 00:13:15.029 of soul and British rock and suddenly we are 00:13:15.029 --> 00:13:18.210 staring at an entry for Black Sabbath. Yes. Black 00:13:18.210 --> 00:13:20.570 Sabbath has a track called It's Alright on their 00:13:20.570 --> 00:13:23.399 album Technical Ecstasy. The inclusion of Black 00:13:23.399 --> 00:13:25.440 Sabbath is perhaps the most illuminating piece 00:13:25.440 --> 00:13:28.259 of data on this entire Wikipedia page. It's so 00:13:28.259 --> 00:13:31.159 jarring. Because heavy metal, as a genre, is 00:13:31.159 --> 00:13:34.399 intrinsically built on confronting doom, darkness, 00:13:34.720 --> 00:13:37.179 and existential dread. It's that abrasive aesthetic. 00:13:37.519 --> 00:13:40.379 Highly aggressive. Yet even within that crushing 00:13:40.379 --> 00:13:42.919 sonic environment, there was a requirement for 00:13:42.919 --> 00:13:46.039 an it's all right moment. It's such a wild juxtaposition. 00:13:46.320 --> 00:13:49.120 You have the pioneers of the occult riff leaning 00:13:49.120 --> 00:13:51.600 on the exact same phrase as Ray Charles. Right. 00:13:51.690 --> 00:13:54.250 It really hammers home that no matter how dark 00:13:54.250 --> 00:13:57.470 or rebellious your chosen aesthetic is, you cannot 00:13:57.470 --> 00:14:00.850 escape the fundamental human desire for a moment 00:14:00.850 --> 00:14:03.840 of respite. Precisely. It proves that the desire 00:14:03.840 --> 00:14:06.679 for comfort transcends stylistic boundaries. 00:14:06.860 --> 00:14:09.960 Completely. The 1970s was a decade of intense 00:14:09.960 --> 00:14:13.360 musical fragmentation. The monolithic pop culture 00:14:13.360 --> 00:14:16.620 of the 60s was breaking apart into highly specialized 00:14:16.620 --> 00:14:18.860 genres. Everyone going into their own corners. 00:14:19.059 --> 00:14:21.820 And yet this phrase survives the fragmentation 00:14:21.820 --> 00:14:24.759 intact. We see that fragmentation perfectly illustrated 00:14:24.759 --> 00:14:27.159 by two adjacent entries on the timeline, actually. 00:14:27.299 --> 00:14:30.500 Which ones? In 1977, Frank Sinatra Jr. releases 00:14:30.500 --> 00:14:33.149 an album titled It's All Right. Okay. And then 00:14:33.149 --> 00:14:36.409 one year later, in 1978, Paul Stanley, the frontman 00:14:36.409 --> 00:14:39.350 of Kiss, releases a solo track called It's Alright 00:14:39.350 --> 00:14:42.230 on his self -titled album. You could not engineer 00:14:42.230 --> 00:14:45.129 a more stark contrast in demographics or artistic 00:14:45.129 --> 00:14:48.200 intent. It's hilarious. Frank Sinatra Jr. represents 00:14:48.200 --> 00:14:51.279 the remnants of traditional pop, right? Desperately 00:14:51.279 --> 00:14:53.620 trying to carry the torch of the big band, crooner 00:14:53.620 --> 00:14:56.879 legacy, into a decade that was completely leaving 00:14:56.879 --> 00:14:59.820 it behind. Yeah, his dad's era. Exactly. And 00:14:59.820 --> 00:15:02.159 on the other end of the spectrum, you have Paul 00:15:02.159 --> 00:15:05.059 Stanley. The star child. The architect of Stadium 00:15:05.059 --> 00:15:08.210 Rock. dominating global youth culture with the 00:15:08.210 --> 00:15:11.409 face paint, pyrotechnics, and pure ego. Right. 00:15:11.490 --> 00:15:13.970 You have a guy in a Taylor tuxedo singing to 00:15:13.970 --> 00:15:17.970 a sit down supper club. Yes. And a guy in platform 00:15:17.970 --> 00:15:20.850 boots spitting blood in front of 60 ,000 screaming 00:15:20.850 --> 00:15:24.220 teenagers. they are operating in entirely different 00:15:24.220 --> 00:15:26.519 universes. But when it comes time to anchor their 00:15:26.519 --> 00:15:29.600 work, they both reach for the exact same colloquial 00:15:29.600 --> 00:15:32.299 phrase. It's almost like it's alright to become 00:15:32.299 --> 00:15:34.620 a standardized piece of emotional infrastructure. 00:15:34.740 --> 00:15:36.799 That's a great metaphor. No matter what house 00:15:36.799 --> 00:15:39.200 you were building in the 70s, you needed this 00:15:39.200 --> 00:15:41.899 phrase in the foundation. And as that infrastructure 00:15:41.899 --> 00:15:44.620 carries over into the 1980s, we see it begin 00:15:44.620 --> 00:15:47.019 to visually mutate. Oh yeah, the 80s entries 00:15:47.019 --> 00:15:49.139 are very different. The grammar on our source 00:15:49.139 --> 00:15:52.129 list changes again. we enter the era of synth 00:15:52.129 --> 00:15:54.870 pop, new wave, and the rise of the parenthetical 00:15:54.870 --> 00:15:57.110 song title. The parentheticals are fascinating. 00:15:57.269 --> 00:16:00.450 Let's look at Yoko Ono. Okay. In 1982, she released 00:16:00.450 --> 00:16:03.629 an album titled, It's Alright, I See Rainbows, 00:16:04.070 --> 00:16:06.230 which also features a title track of the same 00:16:06.230 --> 00:16:09.470 name. Right. She takes the core phrase and bolts 00:16:09.470 --> 00:16:12.490 this deeply visual metaphor right onto the end 00:16:12.490 --> 00:16:15.309 of it. The visual aspect is the key to understanding 00:16:15.309 --> 00:16:17.950 the 1980s entries on this page. Why do you think 00:16:17.950 --> 00:16:20.809 that is? Well, why do song titles suddenly require 00:16:20.809 --> 00:16:23.350 parentheticals to explain themselves? Because 00:16:23.350 --> 00:16:26.190 the music industry was undergoing a massive paradigm 00:16:26.190 --> 00:16:29.230 shift, driven by the advent of MTV and music 00:16:29.230 --> 00:16:32.600 videos. Of course. Video killed the radio star. 00:16:33.360 --> 00:16:36.000 Exactly. The culture became heavily visual. A 00:16:36.000 --> 00:16:38.340 song could no longer just be an auditory experience. 00:16:38.440 --> 00:16:40.879 It had to paint a picture before the video even 00:16:40.879 --> 00:16:42.899 started playing. So the title itself had to be 00:16:42.899 --> 00:16:45.799 visual? Yes. Yoko Ono doesn't just say things 00:16:45.799 --> 00:16:48.580 are okay. She provides the visual evidence of 00:16:48.580 --> 00:16:51.240 the passing storm. I see rainbows. Parentheses. 00:16:51.740 --> 00:16:54.820 I see rainbows. It turns an abstract emotion 00:16:54.820 --> 00:16:58.230 into a concrete, cinematic image. I see your 00:16:58.230 --> 00:17:00.929 point about the visual shift, but and play devil's 00:17:00.929 --> 00:17:03.389 advocate here. Isn't a rainbow a bit of a cliche? 00:17:03.490 --> 00:17:05.809 Well, why is it profound here? Couldn't it just 00:17:05.809 --> 00:17:10.190 be a symptom of 80s pop music leaning into overly 00:17:10.190 --> 00:17:13.779 sweet, you know, highly marketable imagery? It 00:17:13.779 --> 00:17:15.940 absolutely leans into a sweeter imagery, no doubt 00:17:15.940 --> 00:17:19.059 about it. But the cliche works precisely because 00:17:19.059 --> 00:17:21.240 it is universally understood. Right. Instant 00:17:21.240 --> 00:17:24.460 recognition. Exactly. In a rapidly visual medium, 00:17:24.559 --> 00:17:28.019 you don't have time for slow, subtle realization. 00:17:28.539 --> 00:17:30.859 The parenthetical acts as a subtitle for the 00:17:30.859 --> 00:17:33.099 emotion. A subtitle. I like that. And we see 00:17:33.099 --> 00:17:35.200 this narrative subtitling continue through the 00:17:35.200 --> 00:17:38.440 decade. We really do. In 1985, Eurythmics dropped 00:17:38.440 --> 00:17:40.960 a track that our source lists as it's all right 00:17:40.960 --> 00:17:43.400 babies coming back. Yes. Here. The parenthetical 00:17:43.400 --> 00:17:45.180 is doing a completely different type of heavy 00:17:45.180 --> 00:17:47.700 lifting. It isn't a metaphor. It's a plot point. 00:17:47.980 --> 00:17:50.779 Exactly. The parenthetical provides the explicit 00:17:50.779 --> 00:17:53.240 narrative reason for the reassurance. It tells 00:17:53.240 --> 00:17:56.500 you why. It is not a blanket cosmic statement 00:17:56.500 --> 00:17:59.759 that the universe is OK. It is highly specific. 00:17:59.839 --> 00:18:02.450 Why is it all right? Because the anxiety of separation 00:18:02.450 --> 00:18:05.670 has been resolved baby is coming back right the 00:18:05.670 --> 00:18:08.450 80s entries show us that as pop music became 00:18:08.450 --> 00:18:11.349 more theatrical The song titles had to become 00:18:11.349 --> 00:18:14.069 basically micro scripts the phrase wasn't enough 00:18:14.069 --> 00:18:16.750 on its own anymore. No the phrase. It's all right 00:18:16.910 --> 00:18:20.250 demanded a written justification. And that theatricality 00:18:20.250 --> 00:18:22.470 extended heavily into the club scene, too. Definitely. 00:18:22.710 --> 00:18:26.369 Because by 1987, you see the Pet Shop Boys taking 00:18:26.369 --> 00:18:29.049 this sentiment into the synth pop landscape with 00:18:29.049 --> 00:18:31.750 a track called It's Alright on their album Introspective. 00:18:31.890 --> 00:18:34.269 Lazic record. But what's crucial here is that 00:18:34.269 --> 00:18:37.170 the source text explicitly notes this song was 00:18:37.170 --> 00:18:39.369 originally by an artist named Sterling Voight. 00:18:39.430 --> 00:18:42.160 Right. The Pet Shop Boys covered it. That detail 00:18:42.160 --> 00:18:45.220 introduces the phenomenon of the cover song as 00:18:45.220 --> 00:18:47.579 a vehicle for cultural transference. Transference 00:18:47.579 --> 00:18:50.460 from where to where? Well, Sterling Void operated 00:18:50.460 --> 00:18:52.839 in the underground house music scene in Chicago. 00:18:53.059 --> 00:18:56.140 OK. In that environment, a vocal track declaring, 00:18:56.500 --> 00:18:58.920 it's all right, functions as a unifying mantra 00:18:58.920 --> 00:19:01.480 for the dance floor. A shared experience. It 00:19:01.480 --> 00:19:04.539 is about creating a localized, immediate sense 00:19:04.539 --> 00:19:06.920 of community among the people in that specific 00:19:06.920 --> 00:19:09.759 room. Sweating it out in a club. Right. So when 00:19:09.759 --> 00:19:12.500 a massive mainstream act like the Pet Shop Boys 00:19:12.500 --> 00:19:15.339 covers it, they are extracting that underground 00:19:15.339 --> 00:19:18.680 club reassurance and broadcasting it to a global 00:19:18.680 --> 00:19:21.740 pop audience. It's like passing a torch. Exactly. 00:19:22.019 --> 00:19:25.000 The sentiment is so fundamentally sturdy that 00:19:25.000 --> 00:19:27.599 it survives the trip from an underground Chicago 00:19:27.599 --> 00:19:30.799 house club. to the top of the UK pop charts. 00:19:30.900 --> 00:19:33.480 It's universal. And just to prove how globally 00:19:33.480 --> 00:19:36.359 sturdy the phrase was in the 80s... The list 00:19:36.359 --> 00:19:38.640 throws in a fun fact. Oh, the Australian band? 00:19:38.740 --> 00:19:41.640 Yeah. An Australian band called the Cockroaches 00:19:41.640 --> 00:19:45.240 had a track titled It's Alright on their 1987 00:19:45.240 --> 00:19:47.960 self -titled album. That's right. So while synth 00:19:47.960 --> 00:19:50.480 pop is dominating the Northern Hemisphere, this 00:19:50.480 --> 00:19:52.920 exact phrase is also anchoring an Australian 00:19:52.920 --> 00:19:55.319 rock album on the other side of the planet in 00:19:55.319 --> 00:19:57.720 the exact same year. It is a testament to the 00:19:57.720 --> 00:19:59.980 fact that emotional language doesn't respect 00:19:59.980 --> 00:20:02.839 geographical borders. Not at all. However, it 00:20:02.839 --> 00:20:06.390 does respect cultural zeitgeists. And as we scan 00:20:06.390 --> 00:20:09.089 down the timeline, we are about to hit an era 00:20:09.089 --> 00:20:11.809 where the frequency of this phrase absolutely 00:20:11.809 --> 00:20:14.690 explodes. Oh, man, the density of the 1990s on 00:20:14.690 --> 00:20:17.450 this page is staggering. It's a massive cluster. 00:20:17.630 --> 00:20:22.440 It represents the absolute golden age of. Just 00:20:22.440 --> 00:20:25.839 imagine the sheer volume of physical CDs being 00:20:25.839 --> 00:20:28.559 pressed in the 90s with this exact track name 00:20:28.559 --> 00:20:30.640 printed on the back. Millions upon millions. 00:20:30.779 --> 00:20:32.660 The phrase completely takes over, specifically 00:20:32.660 --> 00:20:35.500 within R &B and hip hop. Yes, the list is heavily 00:20:35.500 --> 00:20:37.299 skewed there. The heavy hitters are lined up 00:20:37.299 --> 00:20:39.660 one after another. You've got Shantae Moore in 00:20:39.660 --> 00:20:43.519 1992, classic example in 1992, Dinae Hines in 00:20:43.519 --> 00:20:47.259 1995, Casey Grogan in 1996, Queen Latifah in 00:20:47.259 --> 00:20:50.119 1997, and Jay -Z along with Memphis Bleak in 00:20:50.119 --> 00:20:53.299 1998. It's a total takeover. To understand this 00:20:53.299 --> 00:20:55.440 density, we have to look at the linguistic shift 00:20:55.440 --> 00:20:57.099 that happens here. Going back to the spelling. 00:20:57.299 --> 00:21:00.380 Yes. The formal two -word all -right of the 1960s 00:21:00.380 --> 00:21:03.680 jazz era is entirely gone. Extinct. The 90s entries 00:21:03.680 --> 00:21:06.680 overwhelmingly adopt the single -word vernacular 00:21:06.680 --> 00:21:09.650 spelling. All right. A -L -R -I -G -H -T. This 00:21:09.650 --> 00:21:13.250 reflects a major cultural pivot toward authentic 00:21:13.250 --> 00:21:15.630 conversational street language in commercial 00:21:15.630 --> 00:21:19.349 art. People wanted realness. Exactly. Hip -hop 00:21:19.349 --> 00:21:22.549 and urban contemporary music prized authenticity 00:21:22.549 --> 00:21:25.250 over grammatical formality. But it's more than 00:21:25.250 --> 00:21:27.730 just a spelling update, isn't it? Oh, so? The 00:21:27.730 --> 00:21:30.430 context feels completely different to me. When 00:21:30.430 --> 00:21:32.849 Ray Charles sang it, it felt like a gentle hand 00:21:32.849 --> 00:21:35.150 on your shoulder. Sure. When Jay -Z and Memphis 00:21:35.150 --> 00:21:37.869 Bleak drop a track called It's Alright in 1998, 00:21:38.069 --> 00:21:40.130 it feels like a declaration of survival. It has 00:21:40.130 --> 00:21:43.009 teeth. Yeah. It's coming from a place of street 00:21:43.009 --> 00:21:46.990 -level grit. It's an assertion that despite systemic 00:21:46.990 --> 00:21:49.410 obstacles, despite the hustle and the struggle 00:21:49.410 --> 00:21:52.210 of the environment they are rapping about, they 00:21:52.210 --> 00:21:54.990 are prevailing. Absolutely. It's a much harder, 00:21:55.029 --> 00:21:57.160 more hard -earned version of comfort. You've 00:21:57.160 --> 00:21:59.460 hit on the exact philosophical shift of the decade 00:21:59.460 --> 00:22:02.180 there. Yeah. In the 60s, the phrase was about 00:22:02.180 --> 00:22:05.099 collective communal comfort. By the late 90s, 00:22:05.319 --> 00:22:07.720 particularly in hip hop, the phrase had evolved 00:22:07.720 --> 00:22:10.099 into an expression of individual swagger and 00:22:10.099 --> 00:22:13.660 survival. Swagger, yes. That's the word. When 00:22:13.660 --> 00:22:16.940 Queen Latifah releases It's All Right in 1997, 00:22:17.720 --> 00:22:20.559 she is commanding the space. It becomes a badge 00:22:20.559 --> 00:22:22.079 of honor. Like, look what I made it through. 00:22:22.250 --> 00:22:25.950 Exactly. To say it's all right in 90s hip hop 00:22:25.950 --> 00:22:28.430 is to publicly acknowledge the difficulty of 00:22:28.430 --> 00:22:31.390 your circumstances while simultaneously asserting 00:22:31.390 --> 00:22:33.930 your absolute victory over them. I love that 00:22:33.930 --> 00:22:36.069 interpretation. But I have to challenge that 00:22:36.069 --> 00:22:38.309 just a little bit. Please do. I agree. It's an 00:22:38.309 --> 00:22:41.190 assertion of victory. Yeah. But is it possible? 00:22:41.630 --> 00:22:44.970 It was also just a really good, highly marketable 00:22:44.970 --> 00:22:49.029 radio hook. I mean, by the late 90s, hip hop 00:22:49.029 --> 00:22:52.470 is a massive commercial enterprise. It's just 00:22:52.470 --> 00:22:55.130 the easiest, most digestible chorus to put on 00:22:55.130 --> 00:22:57.650 a track to ensure it gets radio play. The commercial 00:22:57.650 --> 00:23:00.109 reality cannot be ignored, certainly. It is an 00:23:00.109 --> 00:23:02.150 incredibly digestible hook. You can see it in 00:23:02.150 --> 00:23:04.009 the car instantly. But the reason it works as 00:23:04.009 --> 00:23:06.329 a commercial hook is because the underlying emotional 00:23:06.329 --> 00:23:08.789 resonance is authentic. Oh, I see. The audience 00:23:08.789 --> 00:23:11.269 responds to the swagger and the survival narrative. 00:23:11.829 --> 00:23:14.190 The commercial success of the phrase in the 90s 00:23:14.190 --> 00:23:16.809 is just the monetization of a genuine cultural 00:23:16.809 --> 00:23:19.220 shift. Okay, that makes sense. It has to be real 00:23:19.220 --> 00:23:21.259 first before you can sell. Exactly. And what 00:23:21.259 --> 00:23:24.200 makes this Wikipedia page so brilliant is that 00:23:24.200 --> 00:23:28.740 it refuses to let us neatly categorize that cultural 00:23:28.740 --> 00:23:31.779 shift. Because of the pop entries. Yes. Right 00:23:31.779 --> 00:23:35.200 in the middle of this gritty, authentic American 00:23:35.200 --> 00:23:38.779 hip -hop takeover, we have an entry from 1993, 00:23:40.180 --> 00:23:43.950 a song called It's Alright by E17. Yes. And if 00:23:43.950 --> 00:23:47.450 you don't know, E17 was a massive, highly polished 00:23:47.450 --> 00:23:51.410 UK boy band. The juxtaposition is almost comical. 00:23:51.470 --> 00:23:54.170 It's absurd. But it reveals the chameleon nature 00:23:54.170 --> 00:23:56.869 of the phrase. Totally. You have this combination 00:23:56.869 --> 00:23:59.750 of letters simultaneously anchoring the hardest 00:23:59.750 --> 00:24:02.789 hip hop tracks in America and dominating the 00:24:02.789 --> 00:24:05.210 incredibly choreographed teen idol pop scene 00:24:05.210 --> 00:24:07.990 in the UK. At the exact same time. Yes. For the 00:24:07.990 --> 00:24:11.410 boy band, It's Alright is a manufactured romantic 00:24:11.410 --> 00:24:13.940 reassurance direct at a teenage fan. Don't worry, 00:24:14.059 --> 00:24:16.160 girl. I'm here. Right. For the hip hop artists, 00:24:16.259 --> 00:24:18.119 it's a declaration of resilience directed at 00:24:18.119 --> 00:24:19.980 their community. Same phrase, different planets. 00:24:20.279 --> 00:24:22.460 It is the exact same set of words providing an 00:24:22.460 --> 00:24:25.299 entirely different cultural utility. And as the 00:24:25.299 --> 00:24:29.000 timeline pushes past the year 2000, that cultural 00:24:29.000 --> 00:24:32.019 utility shifts yet again. The 2000s are fascinating. 00:24:32.099 --> 00:24:34.759 They really are. The angst and the swagger of 00:24:34.759 --> 00:24:37.440 the 90s begin to settle into a very specific 00:24:37.440 --> 00:24:41.119 new millennium indie vibe. Very alternative. 00:24:41.319 --> 00:24:43.299 Look at the artists picking up the baton in the 00:24:43.299 --> 00:24:46.079 2000s and beyond on this list. You've got Echo 00:24:46.079 --> 00:24:49.720 and the Bunny Men in 2001, 311 in 2009. Right. 00:24:49.900 --> 00:24:52.240 We see a track from Candlebox on their album 00:24:52.240 --> 00:24:55.019 Happy Pills. We have Big Head Todd and the Monsters 00:24:55.019 --> 00:24:57.460 with a track on Sister Sweetly. And we have the 00:24:57.460 --> 00:24:59.859 American Analog set with a track from their album 00:24:59.859 --> 00:25:03.140 The Fun of Watching Fireworks. This era introduces 00:25:03.140 --> 00:25:06.019 a crucial layer of interpretation, the tension 00:25:06.019 --> 00:25:09.259 between sincerity and alternative rock irony. 00:25:09.559 --> 00:25:11.599 Irony is a good word for it. When we look at 00:25:11.599 --> 00:25:13.839 an album title like Happy Pills, which inherently 00:25:13.839 --> 00:25:17.099 implies medication, artificial joy, or basically 00:25:17.099 --> 00:25:19.619 numbing oneself to reality, and we see a track 00:25:19.619 --> 00:25:21.980 titled It's Alright placed within it, we have 00:25:21.980 --> 00:25:24.220 to ask how the phrase is functioning. Right, 00:25:24.240 --> 00:25:26.079 because it completely subverts the exuberance 00:25:26.079 --> 00:25:28.420 we saw back in the 60s. Exactly. Happy Pills 00:25:28.420 --> 00:25:30.279 suggests you're barely getting through the day. 00:25:30.839 --> 00:25:33.579 So if a song on that album is called It's alright. 00:25:33.859 --> 00:25:36.200 It probably means I am heavily medicated so I 00:25:36.200 --> 00:25:38.539 can pretend it's alright. That's a very dark 00:25:38.539 --> 00:25:41.319 but very accurate read. It's not a shout from 00:25:41.319 --> 00:25:43.220 the mountaintop anymore, it's a survival tactic. 00:25:43.579 --> 00:25:46.079 The context of indie and alternative rock in 00:25:46.079 --> 00:25:48.720 the 2000s often deals with disillusionment and 00:25:48.720 --> 00:25:51.180 the complexities of modern anxiety. Yeah, post 00:25:51.180 --> 00:25:54.119 -911 internet age stuff. So when an indie band 00:25:54.119 --> 00:25:58.829 sings... It is rarely a confident declaration. 00:25:59.289 --> 00:26:01.390 It is often a desperate mantra. It's just trying 00:26:01.390 --> 00:26:03.289 to hold it together. They are repeating it to 00:26:03.289 --> 00:26:06.369 themselves to stave off a panic attack. The phrase 00:26:06.369 --> 00:26:09.250 has basically absorbed the neuroses of the 21st 00:26:09.250 --> 00:26:12.369 century. Wow. It is mutated from the straightforward 00:26:12.369 --> 00:26:15.289 joy of Wynton Kelly to the gritty survival of 00:26:15.289 --> 00:26:17.950 Jay -Z into this fragile, potentially ironic 00:26:18.140 --> 00:26:21.200 coping mechanism. And that fragility feels so 00:26:21.200 --> 00:26:23.140 apparent when we look at the modern pop acts 00:26:23.140 --> 00:26:25.720 that keep the timeline marching forward. The 00:26:25.720 --> 00:26:28.180 more recent entries. Yeah. We have Ricky Martin 00:26:28.180 --> 00:26:32.059 in 2006, Fabulous. The boy band Five on their 00:26:32.059 --> 00:26:34.740 album Invincible. We have the indie pop duo Matt 00:26:34.740 --> 00:26:38.980 and Kim. We have the alt -pop band Mother Mother 00:26:38.980 --> 00:26:41.839 with a track on an incredibly aptly named album. 00:26:42.029 --> 00:26:44.230 Dance and cry. Dance and cry. That's perfect. 00:26:44.329 --> 00:26:46.369 It really is. I mean, dance and cry perfectly 00:26:46.369 --> 00:26:48.410 encapsulates that modern duality. Everything 00:26:48.410 --> 00:26:50.529 is terrible. The world is falling apart. But 00:26:50.529 --> 00:26:52.930 we're still dancing. So it's all right. Right. 00:26:53.410 --> 00:26:57.230 And then we get the 1975's variation on the list. 00:26:57.329 --> 00:26:59.950 It's all right so far. The addition of so far 00:26:59.950 --> 00:27:02.869 by the 1975 is just a masterstroke of modern 00:27:02.869 --> 00:27:05.069 songwriting. It's brilliant. It perfectly captures 00:27:05.069 --> 00:27:08.430 a deeply cautious optimism. It is the ultimate 00:27:08.430 --> 00:27:11.109 millennial and Gen Z caveat. Like, don't jinx 00:27:11.109 --> 00:27:13.960 it. Exactly. We live in an era characterized 00:27:13.960 --> 00:27:16.819 by rapid news cycles, global uncertainty, and 00:27:16.819 --> 00:27:18.900 constant technological disruption. Yet tomorrow 00:27:18.900 --> 00:27:20.960 could be totally different. To boldly declare 00:27:20.960 --> 00:27:23.619 it's all right without any qualifiers feels almost 00:27:23.619 --> 00:27:25.759 dangerously naive today. People would think you're 00:27:25.759 --> 00:27:28.940 crazy. By appending so far, the band acknowledges 00:27:28.940 --> 00:27:31.240 the inherent instability of the current moment. 00:27:31.339 --> 00:27:34.450 Right. They are saying... In this exact isolated 00:27:34.450 --> 00:27:37.150 second, things are okay, but I make absolutely 00:27:37.150 --> 00:27:39.529 no promises about what happens tomorrow. It's 00:27:39.529 --> 00:27:42.069 the most relatable update to the phrase we've 00:27:42.069 --> 00:27:44.470 seen. It really is. If you ask someone today 00:27:44.470 --> 00:27:46.769 how they're doing and they say, well, I'm alright. 00:27:47.309 --> 00:27:50.640 So far. you immediately understand their entire 00:27:50.640 --> 00:27:52.920 worldview. You know exactly what they mean. But 00:27:52.920 --> 00:27:55.440 just when you think this phrase belongs purely 00:27:55.440 --> 00:27:59.039 to angst -ridden indie rockers and cautious millennials. 00:27:59.299 --> 00:28:02.480 Oh, here it comes. The list throws us a complete 00:28:02.480 --> 00:28:05.140 curveball. A massive one. The timeline brings 00:28:05.140 --> 00:28:08.140 us to the year 2021, and the entry is a song 00:28:08.140 --> 00:28:11.240 titled, It's Alright, from the soundtrack of 00:28:11.240 --> 00:28:15.500 My Little Pony, A New Generation. It is the ultimate 00:28:15.500 --> 00:28:17.859 paradigm shift. It's hilarious. Think about it. 00:28:18.099 --> 00:28:20.480 We just spent time analyzing how this phrase 00:28:20.480 --> 00:28:23.220 is utilized as an ironic coping mechanism for 00:28:23.220 --> 00:28:26.180 modern existential dread and how it was historically 00:28:26.180 --> 00:28:28.460 used by Black Sabbath to counter the crushing 00:28:28.460 --> 00:28:31.420 doom of heavy metal. Right. And yet here it sits, 00:28:31.740 --> 00:28:34.599 serving as a bright colorful musical centerpiece 00:28:34.599 --> 00:28:37.059 for an animated pony movie aimed at small children. 00:28:37.420 --> 00:28:40.119 You literally cannot script a wider genre jump 00:28:40.119 --> 00:28:42.400 than going from Black Sabbath to My Little Pony. 00:28:42.539 --> 00:28:44.880 It's impossible. It almost feels like a joke 00:28:44.880 --> 00:28:47.779 the universe is playing on us. Or the Wikipedia 00:28:47.779 --> 00:28:50.440 editors, at least. It's not a joke, though. It 00:28:50.440 --> 00:28:53.819 is definitive proof of the phrase's endless versatility. 00:28:54.140 --> 00:28:59.059 Cut to me. It reveals that at its core, It's 00:28:59.059 --> 00:29:01.059 all right, it's the most fundamental building 00:29:01.059 --> 00:29:04.099 block of emotional regulation. Emotional regulation. 00:29:04.319 --> 00:29:07.599 Yes. Whether you are a toddler watching a brightly 00:29:07.599 --> 00:29:10.240 colored cartoon and learning how to process fear 00:29:10.240 --> 00:29:13.099 for the first time, or a teenager moshing at 00:29:13.099 --> 00:29:16.160 a punk show to process anger, or an adult navigating 00:29:16.160 --> 00:29:19.299 a midlife crisis, the psychological need being 00:29:19.299 --> 00:29:22.500 addressed is identical. We all just want to be 00:29:22.500 --> 00:29:24.640 told it's going to be okay. We all require the 00:29:24.640 --> 00:29:26.779 same assurance. That is a really profound way 00:29:26.779 --> 00:29:28.680 to look at it. It's the first emotion we teach 00:29:28.680 --> 00:29:31.220 to children, and it's the last emotion we cling 00:29:31.220 --> 00:29:33.920 to as adults facing the void. Exactly. Now I 00:29:33.920 --> 00:29:35.599 want to transition away from the music section 00:29:35.599 --> 00:29:37.599 of this page for a second. Okay. Because if you 00:29:37.599 --> 00:29:40.180 scroll past the massive catalog of songs and 00:29:40.180 --> 00:29:43.960 albums, you hit a section simply titled entertainment. 00:29:44.279 --> 00:29:47.240 Right, non -music media. And here, the medium 00:29:47.240 --> 00:29:50.700 changes entirely. The list shows us that there 00:29:50.700 --> 00:29:53.119 was actually a television series titled, It's 00:29:53.119 --> 00:29:55.279 All Right. Exclamation point and all. Exactly. 00:29:56.380 --> 00:29:59.119 Furthermore, the phrase serves as the theme song 00:29:59.119 --> 00:30:02.740 to the BBC television series, New Tricks. The 00:30:02.740 --> 00:30:04.759 presence of the phrase in television production 00:30:04.759 --> 00:30:07.500 highlights how network executives and producers 00:30:07.500 --> 00:30:09.819 think about audience psychology and engagement. 00:30:10.109 --> 00:30:12.329 It's marketing again. It's marketing, but it's 00:30:12.329 --> 00:30:14.789 psychological marketing. When you are creating 00:30:14.789 --> 00:30:16.789 a television show, and particularly when you 00:30:16.789 --> 00:30:19.069 are selecting a theme song or a series title, 00:30:19.390 --> 00:30:21.809 you have a fraction of a second to hook a viewer 00:30:21.809 --> 00:30:24.269 who is passively surfing through channels. Just 00:30:24.269 --> 00:30:26.769 flipping by. Right. You need a linguistic anchor 00:30:26.769 --> 00:30:30.089 that is instantly recognizable, universally understood, 00:30:30.470 --> 00:30:32.670 and emotionally resonant. It's like putting a 00:30:32.670 --> 00:30:34.609 psychological welcome mat at the front door of 00:30:34.609 --> 00:30:37.490 your TV show. That's a great way to put it. It's 00:30:37.490 --> 00:30:39.450 fell like signals to the viewer before they even 00:30:39.450 --> 00:30:41.650 know. the plot that this program is going to 00:30:41.650 --> 00:30:43.869 offer some form of familiar struggle and ultimate 00:30:43.869 --> 00:30:46.130 resolution. Exactly. It's a promise of narrative 00:30:46.130 --> 00:30:48.490 safety. You will be okay by the end of the hour. 00:30:48.769 --> 00:30:50.869 That makes total sense. But perhaps the most 00:30:50.869 --> 00:30:52.990 interesting psychological detail on this entire 00:30:52.990 --> 00:30:55.410 page is not in the entertainment section at all. 00:30:55.470 --> 00:30:57.529 Where is it? It is located at the very bottom 00:30:57.529 --> 00:31:00.490 of the document in the see also section. Oh yes. 00:31:01.230 --> 00:31:04.650 The single link. Yes. There is one lone link 00:31:04.650 --> 00:31:07.470 in the see also section. It doesn't point to 00:31:07.470 --> 00:31:11.589 a genre or an artist. year. Nope. The link simply 00:31:11.589 --> 00:31:14.529 points to another Wikipedia page. I'm a right 00:31:14.529 --> 00:31:18.349 disambiguation. That single link represents a 00:31:18.349 --> 00:31:20.569 monumental shift in perspective. The difference 00:31:20.569 --> 00:31:24.000 between it's and I'm. Yes. The leap from the 00:31:24.000 --> 00:31:26.180 phrase, it's all right, to the phrase, I'm all 00:31:26.180 --> 00:31:28.640 right, is the difference between external observation 00:31:28.640 --> 00:31:31.019 and internal validation. Oh, wow. It's all right 00:31:31.019 --> 00:31:33.500 is external. It is looking out at the world, 00:31:33.680 --> 00:31:35.759 assessing the environment, the situation, or 00:31:35.759 --> 00:31:37.900 the circumstances, and declaring that the external 00:31:37.900 --> 00:31:40.200 conditions are manageable. Right. It is very 00:31:40.200 --> 00:31:42.940 often directed outward to comfort someone else. 00:31:43.000 --> 00:31:45.240 Don't worry. It's all right. But I'm all right 00:31:45.240 --> 00:31:47.839 is entirely internal. It's a personal declaration 00:31:47.839 --> 00:31:50.480 of survival. It's looking inward. It's all right 00:31:50.480 --> 00:31:53.019 that the car broke down. but I'm all right because 00:31:53.019 --> 00:31:56.200 I survived the crash. That is a massive psychological 00:31:56.200 --> 00:31:58.700 difference. It is. And the fact that the Wikipedia 00:31:58.700 --> 00:32:01.099 editors, whether consciously or through some 00:32:01.099 --> 00:32:04.599 algorithmic logic, linked these two specific 00:32:04.599 --> 00:32:07.759 disambiguation pages together, highlights the 00:32:07.759 --> 00:32:11.279 core human drive that powers this entire list. 00:32:11.400 --> 00:32:14.359 What drive is that? As human beings, we are constantly 00:32:14.359 --> 00:32:16.799 fluctuating between these two states. OK. We 00:32:16.799 --> 00:32:19.500 are trying to ensure the world around us is OK. 00:32:19.839 --> 00:32:22.549 It's all right. simultaneously trying to ensure 00:32:22.549 --> 00:32:24.970 we ourselves are okay. All right. They are the 00:32:24.970 --> 00:32:27.490 twin pillars of emotional survival. Precisely. 00:32:27.730 --> 00:32:30.690 This deep dive into a simple list of links has 00:32:30.690 --> 00:32:33.410 become incredibly philosophical. It really has. 00:32:33.809 --> 00:32:36.730 And honestly, the metadata of the source text 00:32:36.730 --> 00:32:39.549 itself provides the perfect grounding elements 00:32:39.549 --> 00:32:41.730 for our discussion. The Wikipedia formatting 00:32:41.730 --> 00:32:44.250 details. Yeah, there are these quirky robotic 00:32:44.250 --> 00:32:46.869 details that remind us of the framework holding 00:32:46.869 --> 00:32:49.279 all this human emotion together. For instance, 00:32:49.480 --> 00:32:51.660 at the top of the page, under the Appearance 00:32:51.660 --> 00:32:54.279 tab, there's an option to toggle on birthday 00:32:54.279 --> 00:32:58.039 mode, Baby Globe. Which is funny. And it notes 00:32:58.039 --> 00:33:01.259 that it is currently disabled. Down in the hidden 00:33:01.259 --> 00:33:04.079 categories, it states, short description is different 00:33:04.079 --> 00:33:06.660 from Wikidata. Yeah, technical. And finally, 00:33:06.819 --> 00:33:08.960 the page notes that it was last edited on November 00:33:08.960 --> 00:33:13.859 29th, 2024. Those meta details are vital, actually. 00:33:13.960 --> 00:33:16.109 Why do you say that? Because they remind you 00:33:16.109 --> 00:33:18.589 that culture is not a static object sitting under 00:33:18.589 --> 00:33:20.630 glass in a museum. Right, it's not finished. 00:33:20.890 --> 00:33:23.730 It is a living, breathing, constantly updated 00:33:23.730 --> 00:33:26.500 database. The note about the short description 00:33:26.500 --> 00:33:29.099 differing from Wikidata shows the ongoing friction 00:33:29.099 --> 00:33:32.160 between human nuance and rigid machine categorization. 00:33:32.359 --> 00:33:35.400 The messy human element. Exactly. And that edit 00:33:35.400 --> 00:33:38.680 date, November 29th, 2024, provides an exact 00:33:38.680 --> 00:33:41.720 localized timestamp of our cultural record. It's 00:33:41.720 --> 00:33:43.279 a snapshot of where we are right now. Right. 00:33:43.380 --> 00:33:45.420 It proves that this list is fundamentally unfinished. 00:33:45.619 --> 00:33:47.619 Because there will be more songs. As long as 00:33:47.619 --> 00:33:50.480 artists keep writing songs, and as long as human 00:33:50.480 --> 00:33:54.380 beings continue to experience anxiety, joy, heartbreak, 00:33:54.640 --> 00:33:58.480 and relief, this disambiguation page will keep 00:33:58.480 --> 00:34:00.539 growing. It's never gonna stop. There will be 00:34:00.539 --> 00:34:05.660 an edit in 2025 and 2030 and 2050. New artists 00:34:05.660 --> 00:34:08.739 will continually rediscover this exact phrase 00:34:08.739 --> 00:34:11.159 and recontextualize it for a new generation. 00:34:11.400 --> 00:34:13.380 That is a beautiful way to look at it. Yeah. 00:34:13.670 --> 00:34:16.369 Let's take a moment to basically synthesize the 00:34:16.369 --> 00:34:18.110 incredible journey we've just mapped out today. 00:34:18.269 --> 00:34:20.650 We covered a lot of ground. We really did. Well. 00:34:20.929 --> 00:34:23.610 What started today is an examination of a dry, 00:34:23.889 --> 00:34:27.010 functional Wikipedia directory. A page meant 00:34:27.010 --> 00:34:29.269 only to correct typos and search errors. Right. 00:34:29.469 --> 00:34:31.889 Turned into a comprehensive multi -decade map 00:34:31.889 --> 00:34:34.340 of modern history. It's quite a map. We started 00:34:34.340 --> 00:34:37.000 with the formal exclamation -pointed declarations 00:34:37.000 --> 00:34:40.519 of the 1960s jazz and soul eras with Wynton Kelly 00:34:40.519 --> 00:34:42.719 and Ray Charles. In the era of proper grammar. 00:34:42.940 --> 00:34:45.000 We explored the quiet psychological come -down 00:34:45.000 --> 00:34:47.059 of the B -sides during the British invasion with 00:34:47.059 --> 00:34:50.300 the Kinks. A -side chaos, B -side comfort. Exactly. 00:34:50.639 --> 00:34:52.420 We charted the shift to heavy metal with Black 00:34:52.420 --> 00:34:55.079 Sabbath, proving that even doom requires comfort. 00:34:55.400 --> 00:34:58.960 still blows my mind. We saw the rise of the narrative 00:34:58.960 --> 00:35:02.320 parenthetical in the highly vigil 80s with Yoko 00:35:02.320 --> 00:35:05.079 Ono and the Eurythmics. The video era. We witnessed 00:35:05.079 --> 00:35:08.320 the absolute hip hop and R &B takeover of the 00:35:08.320 --> 00:35:11.139 one word all right in the 90s, transforming the 00:35:11.139 --> 00:35:13.239 phrase into a badge of street level survival. 00:35:13.619 --> 00:35:16.659 Cure swagger. And finally, we followed the phrase 00:35:16.659 --> 00:35:19.079 through the anxious irony of modern indie rock, 00:35:19.579 --> 00:35:23.750 the cautious optimism of the 1975 so far. right 00:35:23.750 --> 00:35:26.429 up to the bright, fundamental, emotional regulation 00:35:26.429 --> 00:35:29.650 of children's animation in 2021 with My Little 00:35:29.650 --> 00:35:32.570 Pony. It is a staggering testament to the power 00:35:32.570 --> 00:35:35.289 of a few simple words. It truly is. We've spent 00:35:35.289 --> 00:35:37.650 all this time tracking how artists across six 00:35:37.650 --> 00:35:39.889 decades use, it's all right to soothe us, to 00:35:39.889 --> 00:35:42.130 guide us, and to assert their own survival. Right. 00:35:42.309 --> 00:35:44.570 But looking at the sheer overwhelming volume 00:35:44.570 --> 00:35:46.829 of these tracks, you have to leave with one final 00:35:46.829 --> 00:35:49.429 thought to mull over. Which is what? With millions 00:35:49.429 --> 00:35:51.349 of words in the English language, why do artists 00:35:51.349 --> 00:35:54.349 across 60 years and dozens of genres keep returning 00:35:54.349 --> 00:35:57.510 to this exact simple phrase. It's a fair question. 00:35:57.829 --> 00:35:59.969 The next time you listen to your favorite playlist 00:35:59.969 --> 00:36:04.329 and hear an artist sing, ask yourself, who are 00:36:04.329 --> 00:36:08.670 they trying to comfort? You or themselves? Wow. 00:36:09.250 --> 00:36:11.650 That completely reframes everything we just talked 00:36:11.650 --> 00:36:14.150 about. Are they singing it for us or just looking 00:36:14.150 --> 00:36:16.409 in the mirror trying to survive the day? Exactly. 00:36:16.469 --> 00:36:18.690 That is a massive question to leave hanging in 00:36:18.690 --> 00:36:20.849 the air. Something to think about. Absolutely. 00:36:21.159 --> 00:36:23.420 Well, a huge thank you to you, the listener, 00:36:23.800 --> 00:36:25.900 for joining us on this deep dive today. Thanks 00:36:25.900 --> 00:36:28.420 for listening. We set out to find the hidden 00:36:28.420 --> 00:36:31.400 stories in a simple internet directory, and we 00:36:31.400 --> 00:36:33.599 ended up tracking the psychological history of 00:36:33.599 --> 00:36:36.860 pop culture. Not a bad day's work. Not at all. 00:36:37.880 --> 00:36:40.340 Remember to keep your eyes open. Because there 00:36:40.340 --> 00:36:43.500 is always a deeper, vastly more complex narrative 00:36:43.500 --> 00:36:45.960 waiting to be uncovered in the most unexpected 00:36:45.960 --> 00:36:48.880 everyday places. Like a Wikipedia page. Exactly. 00:36:49.199 --> 00:36:51.380 Until next time, keep listening, keep questioning 00:36:51.380 --> 00:36:54.119 in whatever playlist you end up on today. It's 00:36:54.119 --> 00:36:54.260 alright.