WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.080 Welcome to the deep dive. We are We're really 00:00:03.080 --> 00:00:04.639 thrilled. You're here with us today because we're 00:00:04.639 --> 00:00:06.440 doing some time travel. Oh, yeah, we are going 00:00:06.440 --> 00:00:09.380 way back Yeah back to late 2009. We're exploring 00:00:09.380 --> 00:00:12.699 a very specific Really fascinating moment in 00:00:12.699 --> 00:00:15.179 R &B history, right? And we're doing it by untacking 00:00:15.179 --> 00:00:18.179 a single comprehensive Wikipedia article about 00:00:18.179 --> 00:00:22.500 the song I am Which is a major release from a 00:00:22.500 --> 00:00:25.160 defining artist of our era Mary J. Glitch our 00:00:25.160 --> 00:00:27.699 goal today is to really look at the anatomy of 00:00:27.699 --> 00:00:30.879 a major music release during what was, frankly, 00:00:31.300 --> 00:00:34.000 a transitional era in the music industry. Definitely. 00:00:34.179 --> 00:00:36.140 Because it's so easy to look back at a song from 00:00:36.140 --> 00:00:38.320 over a decade ago and just see the chart numbers 00:00:38.320 --> 00:00:41.100 or the runtime. But through this article, we 00:00:41.100 --> 00:00:46.159 want to trace how an artist's personal and emotional 00:00:46.159 --> 00:00:48.640 evolution gets translated into a commercial product. 00:00:48.799 --> 00:00:51.929 Yeah, into a tangible thing you can buy. Exactly. 00:00:52.310 --> 00:00:55.170 We are going to examine the grueling machinery 00:00:55.170 --> 00:00:58.789 of late 2000s television promotion and we'll 00:00:58.789 --> 00:01:01.909 wade into the deeply interesting world of global 00:01:01.909 --> 00:01:05.230 chart performance and remix culture. At the end 00:01:05.230 --> 00:01:07.290 of this, the architecture that goes into launching 00:01:07.290 --> 00:01:09.709 a single track is going to be incredibly apparent 00:01:09.709 --> 00:01:11.689 to you. So just to give you a brief overview 00:01:11.689 --> 00:01:13.409 before we get into the tall grass here. Please 00:01:13.409 --> 00:01:18.549 do. I am him, was released in late 2009. It's 00:01:18.549 --> 00:01:21.349 the lead single from her ninth studio album, 00:01:21.609 --> 00:01:24.329 which was called Stronger With Each Tear. And 00:01:24.329 --> 00:01:25.769 reading through the article, the thing that jumps 00:01:25.769 --> 00:01:27.909 off the page immediately is that this track is 00:01:27.909 --> 00:01:31.310 defined by its supreme confidence. Unshakeable 00:01:31.310 --> 00:01:33.930 confidence. Yeah, it represents this distinct 00:01:33.930 --> 00:01:37.390 departure from the artist's past eras. It's really 00:01:37.390 --> 00:01:39.730 a statement piece. The way the text lays out 00:01:39.730 --> 00:01:41.849 the credits, the critical reception, the billboard 00:01:41.849 --> 00:01:44.299 data, and oh my gosh, even the - the bizarrely 00:01:44.299 --> 00:01:46.819 specific real estate details of the music video. 00:01:46.859 --> 00:01:48.379 Oh, we are definitely getting to the real estate 00:01:48.379 --> 00:01:51.120 later. We have to. But it all paints a picture 00:01:51.120 --> 00:01:53.719 of an artist stepping into a totally new phase 00:01:53.719 --> 00:01:55.939 of power. Which is a really interesting place 00:01:55.939 --> 00:01:59.459 to start, actually. Because projecting that kind 00:01:59.459 --> 00:02:03.319 of unshakable power usually requires a remarkably 00:02:03.319 --> 00:02:06.140 sturdy foundation. Like a strong team behind 00:02:06.140 --> 00:02:08.280 you. Right. If we look at the genesis of the 00:02:08.280 --> 00:02:11.800 track, the songwriting credits for I Am are extensive. 00:02:12.500 --> 00:02:15.080 The song wasn't just penned by the artist alone 00:02:15.080 --> 00:02:17.379 in a dark room. Right, it rarely is at that level. 00:02:17.620 --> 00:02:19.500 It was written by a collaborative team of six 00:02:19.500 --> 00:02:22.400 people. You've got Mary J. Blige, John Taw Austin, 00:02:22.719 --> 00:02:26.080 Esther Dean, Magnus Bate, Tor Erik Hermansson, 00:02:26.319 --> 00:02:29.379 and Mikkel Erickson. See, six writers for a deeply 00:02:29.379 --> 00:02:31.659 personal song feels, I don't know, it feels like 00:02:31.659 --> 00:02:33.659 a contradiction to me. How so? Well, how does 00:02:33.659 --> 00:02:35.819 a song stay personal, especially one literally 00:02:35.819 --> 00:02:37.740 titled I Am, when it goes through a committee? 00:02:38.120 --> 00:02:40.520 You'd think that many voices would just dilute 00:02:40.520 --> 00:02:42.680 the emotional core. You'd think so, sure. Yeah. 00:02:43.000 --> 00:02:45.840 But in modern R &B, it's actually about distillation. 00:02:46.020 --> 00:02:47.919 OK. Think of it less like a corporate committee 00:02:47.919 --> 00:02:50.639 and more like a team of architects. The production 00:02:50.639 --> 00:02:53.099 was helmed by Tor Erik Hermansson and Mikkel 00:02:53.099 --> 00:02:55.939 Ericsson, who... You might know them better under 00:02:55.939 --> 00:02:58.580 their production moniker, Stargate. Oh, Stargate, 00:02:58.819 --> 00:03:00.879 yeah. For those who might not know, Stargate 00:03:00.879 --> 00:03:03.939 is this Norwegian production duo that essentially 00:03:03.939 --> 00:03:06.599 defined the sound of late 2000s American pop 00:03:06.599 --> 00:03:09.419 and R &B. They were everywhere. Everywhere. They 00:03:09.419 --> 00:03:12.520 brought a very clean, pristine, melodic sensibility 00:03:12.520 --> 00:03:15.000 to the genre. Yeah. Then you have Esther Dean 00:03:15.000 --> 00:03:19.099 on this track who in 2009 was rapidly becoming 00:03:19.099 --> 00:03:21.699 the industry's premier hook machine. She wrote 00:03:21.699 --> 00:03:23.699 everything. She had this unparalleled talent 00:03:23.699 --> 00:03:26.039 for crafting melodies that would just lodge in 00:03:26.039 --> 00:03:28.939 your brain and refuse to leave. And John Tolstin 00:03:28.939 --> 00:03:32.719 is a veteran R &B writer who really understands 00:03:32.719 --> 00:03:36.080 the architecture of a classic soul song. So the 00:03:36.080 --> 00:03:38.379 artist brings the emotional truth like the raw 00:03:38.379 --> 00:03:41.520 material and this massive team acts as the refinery. 00:03:41.680 --> 00:03:44.360 Precisely. They are building a sonic architecture 00:03:44.360 --> 00:03:46.539 designed to support a very specific emotional 00:03:46.539 --> 00:03:48.479 weight. Right. When you have an artist collaborating 00:03:48.479 --> 00:03:51.060 across studios with dedicated top -line writers 00:03:51.060 --> 00:03:53.879 and powerhouse producers like Stargate, the lyrical 00:03:53.879 --> 00:03:56.520 message is debated, it's polished, and it's structured 00:03:56.520 --> 00:03:58.719 to hit the listener with maximum impact. It's 00:03:58.719 --> 00:04:01.400 engineered precision. Engineered precision. I 00:04:01.400 --> 00:04:03.400 like that. And the emotional weight they're trying 00:04:03.400 --> 00:04:06.539 to convey here is heavy, but in a totally uplifting 00:04:06.539 --> 00:04:09.479 way. Yeah. The article notes the lyrical theme. 00:04:09.680 --> 00:04:12.379 centers on a protagonist who confidently tells 00:04:12.379 --> 00:04:14.800 her lover that nobody can treat them better than 00:04:14.800 --> 00:04:17.040 the person they are with at the present time. 00:04:17.120 --> 00:04:20.240 Which is bold. It is. Think about how rare that 00:04:20.240 --> 00:04:22.720 is to possess that grounded certainty where you 00:04:22.720 --> 00:04:25.459 can honestly say to someone, nobody can treat 00:04:25.459 --> 00:04:27.579 you better than me. Right. And not from a place 00:04:27.579 --> 00:04:30.120 of arrogance either. Exactly. Not arrogance, 00:04:30.220 --> 00:04:33.500 but from a place of just settled self -worth. 00:04:34.779 --> 00:04:37.759 Translating that specific quiet confidence into 00:04:37.759 --> 00:04:40.779 a mainstream pop anthem is incredibly difficult. 00:04:40.860 --> 00:04:43.639 It's a profound statement. Yeah. And conveying 00:04:43.639 --> 00:04:45.560 that level of self -assurance in a way that resonates 00:04:45.560 --> 00:04:48.139 with millions of people that requires that exact 00:04:48.139 --> 00:04:50.660 Stargate polish. Yeah. They have to capture an 00:04:50.660 --> 00:04:53.300 emotion that is tensely personal to the artist, 00:04:53.939 --> 00:04:56.519 but phrase it. structure the chords around it, 00:04:56.779 --> 00:04:58.459 and build the rhythm so it becomes a universal 00:04:58.459 --> 00:05:01.620 anthem. When you hear the song, the music actually 00:05:01.620 --> 00:05:03.720 acts as a vehicle for transferring that optimism 00:05:03.720 --> 00:05:06.490 directly to you, the listener. Which brings us 00:05:06.490 --> 00:05:09.069 to a fascinating part of this Wikipedia page. 00:05:09.470 --> 00:05:13.209 Because to really grasp the impact of I Am, you 00:05:13.209 --> 00:05:15.410 have to look at the critical reception section. 00:05:16.509 --> 00:05:19.829 There's a review cited from BET .com that I think 00:05:19.829 --> 00:05:22.509 serves as the absolute crux of why this song 00:05:22.509 --> 00:05:25.069 matters in the broader context of her career. 00:05:25.319 --> 00:05:26.980 I know the exact quote you're talking about. 00:05:27.199 --> 00:05:29.399 Yeah. The review states that the song is a perfect 00:05:29.399 --> 00:05:31.660 showcase of Mary's brighter outlook in the new 00:05:31.660 --> 00:05:34.379 millennium. And the reviewer specifically notes 00:05:34.379 --> 00:05:36.819 that, looking back at all the drama and pain 00:05:36.819 --> 00:05:40.319 of the 90s. 90s. Both in her music and in her 00:05:40.319 --> 00:05:42.980 personal life. It's hard not to smile hearing 00:05:42.980 --> 00:05:45.959 her newfound confidence and optimism here. That 00:05:45.959 --> 00:05:48.500 beat review is doing some heavy lifting for the 00:05:48.500 --> 00:05:51.459 whole narrative. Really is. It explicitly asks 00:05:51.459 --> 00:05:53.720 the audience to look backward, to understand 00:05:53.720 --> 00:05:56.360 the present. It draws a definitive boundary line 00:05:56.360 --> 00:05:58.839 between two distinct eras of an artist's life. 00:05:59.500 --> 00:06:02.620 On one side, you have the drama and pain of the 00:06:02.620 --> 00:06:05.139 90s, and on the other, you have the brighter 00:06:05.139 --> 00:06:07.740 outlook of the 2000s. And that begs the question, 00:06:08.579 --> 00:06:11.500 how does an artist successfully navigate that 00:06:11.500 --> 00:06:15.040 transition? Because historically, a lot of artists 00:06:15.040 --> 00:06:18.089 build their entire brand. their entire fan connection 00:06:18.089 --> 00:06:20.430 on their struggles. That is the million dollar 00:06:20.430 --> 00:06:23.550 question. It's incredibly rare for a single song 00:06:23.550 --> 00:06:26.990 or even a single album cycle to act as a definitive 00:06:26.990 --> 00:06:29.350 turning point without alienating the core base. 00:06:29.529 --> 00:06:32.069 It's super risky. If you scroll down to the bottom 00:06:32.069 --> 00:06:34.569 of this Wikipedia article, there's an index of 00:06:34.569 --> 00:06:37.269 her singles organized chronologically by decade. 00:06:37.410 --> 00:06:39.629 I love those tables. They're great. And it's 00:06:39.629 --> 00:06:41.910 practically a map of her emotional journey. If 00:06:41.910 --> 00:06:44.370 you look at the 1990s singles listed, you see 00:06:44.370 --> 00:06:47.850 titles that literally spell out the the BET review 00:06:47.850 --> 00:06:50.550 references. Yep, you don't have to worry. I'm 00:06:50.550 --> 00:06:52.850 going down, missing you, seven days, deep inside. 00:06:53.129 --> 00:06:55.629 And going down is the quintessential example 00:06:55.629 --> 00:06:57.529 there. Oh, absolutely. These are titles that 00:06:57.529 --> 00:07:00.829 suggest conflict, longing, searching, heartbreak. 00:07:01.189 --> 00:07:04.490 They are the sonic embodiment of 90s R &B angst. 00:07:04.610 --> 00:07:06.769 They are heavy. They're heavy, they're dramatic, 00:07:06.850 --> 00:07:10.100 and they are brilliant. And that pain is what 00:07:10.100 --> 00:07:12.720 endeared her to millions. Fans connected with 00:07:12.720 --> 00:07:14.860 that vulnerability. They saw their own heartbreak 00:07:14.860 --> 00:07:17.519 reflected in those tracks. Exactly. So when an 00:07:17.519 --> 00:07:19.579 artist transitions from making art out of trauma 00:07:19.579 --> 00:07:21.500 to making art out of happiness and stability, 00:07:22.120 --> 00:07:24.720 they run an immense risk. The audience might 00:07:24.720 --> 00:07:27.879 feel left behind. Or worse, they might find the 00:07:27.879 --> 00:07:30.199 new happy material inauthentic. They might say, 00:07:30.660 --> 00:07:33.029 you don't sound like you anymore. But she pulls 00:07:33.029 --> 00:07:35.750 it off. She really does. If you look at the 2 00:07:35.750 --> 00:07:39.069 ,000 singles listed in that same index, you can 00:07:39.069 --> 00:07:41.769 trace the shift in her mindset through the song 00:07:41.769 --> 00:07:43.910 titles alone. Oh, it's fascinating. She starts 00:07:43.910 --> 00:07:46.829 the decade with No More Drama, which is a literal 00:07:46.829 --> 00:07:48.889 declaration of intent. Yes. It's her putting 00:07:48.889 --> 00:07:51.250 a stake in the ground. Then as the decade progresses, 00:07:51.389 --> 00:07:54.110 you move into titles like Family Affair, Rainy 00:07:54.110 --> 00:07:56.810 Days, Love at First Sight, Just Fine, Work That, 00:07:56.970 --> 00:08:00.189 Stay Down, The One. And finally, the song we 00:08:00.189 --> 00:08:03.149 are discussing today, I Am. Just fine, work that. 00:08:03.329 --> 00:08:06.430 I Am. The evolution is right there in plain text. 00:08:06.670 --> 00:08:10.029 It's a highly cohesive narrative arc. She managed 00:08:10.029 --> 00:08:12.269 to bring her audience along with her over an 00:08:12.269 --> 00:08:15.550 entire decade. She didn't just abandon the 90s 00:08:15.550 --> 00:08:18.350 angst overnight, you know. She showed her listeners 00:08:18.350 --> 00:08:21.170 the gradual work of healing. Right, the process. 00:08:21.389 --> 00:08:23.449 She proved that there is a light at the end of 00:08:23.449 --> 00:08:25.589 the tunnel, that a person can realistically go 00:08:25.589 --> 00:08:30.860 from, I'm going down to, I am. That is what the 00:08:30.860 --> 00:08:33.399 BET .com review is actually celebrating. It's 00:08:33.399 --> 00:08:35.080 not just that the Stargate production sounds 00:08:35.080 --> 00:08:38.059 pristine, it's that the person singing it has 00:08:38.059 --> 00:08:40.679 achieved a level of emotional triumph that feels 00:08:40.679 --> 00:08:43.500 earned. Earned. Authenticity is the key word 00:08:43.500 --> 00:08:46.360 there. The audience believes the optimism of 00:08:46.360 --> 00:08:48.879 I am because they lived through the drama of 00:08:48.879 --> 00:08:51.480 the 90s with her. Exactly. The confidence is 00:08:51.480 --> 00:08:53.899 hard won. And from an industry perspective, when 00:08:53.899 --> 00:08:56.100 you have an earned narrative like that, this 00:08:56.100 --> 00:08:59.059 triumphant return of a beloved icon, it becomes 00:08:59.059 --> 00:09:01.379 a highly potent marketing tool. Oh, for sure. 00:09:01.480 --> 00:09:04.100 Which leads us to the sheer scale of how this 00:09:04.100 --> 00:09:07.039 song was presented to the world in late 2009. 00:09:07.360 --> 00:09:09.620 The promotional juggernaut. It was massive. Having 00:09:09.620 --> 00:09:12.519 a great song with a powerful, earned message 00:09:12.519 --> 00:09:15.639 is step one. But getting the entire world to 00:09:15.639 --> 00:09:18.139 hear it in 2009 was a completely different beast. 00:09:18.299 --> 00:09:20.440 Totally different era. The Wikipedia article 00:09:20.440 --> 00:09:23.039 provides a chronological release and performance 00:09:23.039 --> 00:09:25.659 history that is, honestly, it's exhausting just 00:09:25.659 --> 00:09:29.059 to read. I get tired looking at the dates. Right. 00:09:29.600 --> 00:09:32.000 The timeline goes like this. The song was sent 00:09:32.000 --> 00:09:34.159 to Urban Radio in the week beginning November 00:09:34.159 --> 00:09:37.720 10, 2009. Her first live performance was at the 00:09:37.720 --> 00:09:41.159 American Music Awards on November 22, but the 00:09:41.159 --> 00:09:43.259 digital download wasn't released until December 00:09:43.259 --> 00:09:46.200 8. Okay, let's unpack that timeline because it 00:09:46.200 --> 00:09:50.240 reveals a very specific late 2000s industry strategy 00:09:50.240 --> 00:09:53.679 that has largely vanished today. Windowing. Exactly. 00:09:53.759 --> 00:09:56.000 First, they sent it to Urban Radio. For those 00:09:56.000 --> 00:09:58.529 who might not know, In 2009, this was a specific 00:09:58.529 --> 00:10:00.889 industry format focusing heavily on R &B and 00:10:00.889 --> 00:10:03.090 hip -hop. It was the essential proving ground. 00:10:03.309 --> 00:10:04.909 You build a foundation with the core audience 00:10:04.909 --> 00:10:07.269 first. Right. Then 12 days later, you execute 00:10:07.269 --> 00:10:09.850 a sweeping, prime -time television performance 00:10:09.850 --> 00:10:12.870 at the AMAs. But here's the kicker. Even after 00:10:12.870 --> 00:10:14.990 seeing that massive prime -time performance, 00:10:15.269 --> 00:10:17.870 you still can't buy the song. Which is wild to 00:10:17.870 --> 00:10:20.279 think about now. It is. You have to wait another 00:10:20.279 --> 00:10:24.259 16 days until December 8 to legally download 00:10:24.259 --> 00:10:27.139 it on platforms like iTunes. They were artificially 00:10:27.139 --> 00:10:29.820 creating anticipation. They were starving the 00:10:29.820 --> 00:10:32.019 market so that when the digital download finally 00:10:32.019 --> 00:10:34.539 opened up, there would be this flood of pent 00:10:34.539 --> 00:10:38.879 up demand pushing the song up the charts. Today, 00:10:39.299 --> 00:10:41.759 with streaming, the performance and the availability 00:10:41.759 --> 00:10:45.519 are basically simultaneous. In 2009, windowing 00:10:45.519 --> 00:10:48.279 was still a vital tactic. And once that digital 00:10:48.279 --> 00:10:51.039 floodgate opened on December 8, the media blitz 00:10:51.039 --> 00:10:53.659 that followed was staggering. Unbelievable. The 00:10:53.659 --> 00:10:55.860 article details the television circuit she ran, 00:10:56.200 --> 00:10:58.399 and it is a perfect snapshot of how record labels 00:10:58.399 --> 00:11:00.639 blanketed the cultural consciousness back then. 00:11:00.919 --> 00:11:02.799 I charted out her schedule from the text, and 00:11:02.799 --> 00:11:05.419 the sheer volume of appearances is wild. Read 00:11:05.419 --> 00:11:07.759 it out. Listen to this lineup. She performed 00:11:07.759 --> 00:11:10.389 I Am on Lopez tonight. She did So You Think You 00:11:10.389 --> 00:11:12.870 Can Dance. She hit the Jay Leno Show and Jimmy 00:11:12.870 --> 00:11:15.769 Kimmel Live. Wow. She appeared on A &E's Private 00:11:15.769 --> 00:11:18.629 Sessions. She performed on The Today Show, The 00:11:18.629 --> 00:11:21.409 View, The Ellen DeGeneres Show, and The Late 00:11:21.409 --> 00:11:23.669 Show with David Letterman. Just reading that 00:11:23.669 --> 00:11:26.330 list makes my vocal cords hurt. Right. Oh, and 00:11:26.330 --> 00:11:28.309 when the song was released in the UK a few months 00:11:28.309 --> 00:11:31.049 later, she flew over there and performed it on 00:11:31.049 --> 00:11:34.809 Ellen Carr. Chatty man. It's the physical stamina 00:11:34.809 --> 00:11:37.370 required to execute that schedule is mind boggling. 00:11:37.470 --> 00:11:40.389 It's an athletic feat. It really is. Think about 00:11:40.389 --> 00:11:43.070 the logistics. You are waking up at maybe four 00:11:43.070 --> 00:11:45.730 in the morning to sound check for The Today Show 00:11:45.730 --> 00:11:49.389 in New York. You're singing a high energy R &B 00:11:49.389 --> 00:11:52.710 anthem at eight thirty in the morning while people 00:11:52.710 --> 00:11:55.509 are drinking their coffee. Right. Then you are 00:11:55.509 --> 00:11:57.950 likely flying across the country to Los Angeles 00:11:57.950 --> 00:12:00.669 to do a late night comedy show like Kimmel or 00:12:00.669 --> 00:12:04.990 Lano. Then you're performing on a highly choreographed 00:12:04.990 --> 00:12:07.789 reality competition show. Like so you think you 00:12:07.789 --> 00:12:09.750 can dance. Which is a totally different audience. 00:12:09.990 --> 00:12:12.389 Exactly. You're constantly shifting gear, shifting 00:12:12.389 --> 00:12:14.690 energies, interacting with different hosts to 00:12:14.690 --> 00:12:16.690 perform the exact same three and a half minute 00:12:16.690 --> 00:12:19.509 song over and over again. And you have to make 00:12:19.509 --> 00:12:22.269 it look fresh and effortless every single time. 00:12:22.379 --> 00:12:24.860 It's a highly calculated carpet bombing of the 00:12:24.860 --> 00:12:27.059 American viewing public. It really was. Because 00:12:27.059 --> 00:12:28.799 it wasn't just about hitting the biggest shows, 00:12:28.879 --> 00:12:31.539 it was about hitting every specific demographic. 00:12:32.279 --> 00:12:34.659 The View and the Ellen DeGeneres Show captured 00:12:34.659 --> 00:12:38.139 the daytime, largely female audience. The Today 00:12:38.139 --> 00:12:40.320 Show hit the morning commuters and stay -at -home 00:12:40.320 --> 00:12:43.320 parents. Leno, Letterman, and Kimmel were fighting 00:12:43.320 --> 00:12:46.340 over the late night crowd. Lopez Tonight brought 00:12:46.340 --> 00:12:49.039 in a younger, more diverse, late night audience. 00:12:49.259 --> 00:12:51.559 So You Think You Can Dance appealed to reality 00:12:51.559 --> 00:12:55.200 TV fans, and Private Sessions on A &E captured 00:12:55.200 --> 00:12:58.440 an older, more music nerd demographic. Covering 00:12:58.440 --> 00:13:00.539 all the bases. Literally nowhere you could turn 00:13:00.539 --> 00:13:02.899 your television in late 2009 without seeing a 00:13:02.899 --> 00:13:05.899 performance of I Am. which tells us so much about 00:13:05.899 --> 00:13:07.980 the state of the media in that specific year. 00:13:08.679 --> 00:13:10.519 YouTube was growing, definitely, and digital 00:13:10.519 --> 00:13:12.899 downloads were dominating, but the industry still 00:13:12.899 --> 00:13:15.659 heavily relied on the monoculture of broadcast 00:13:15.659 --> 00:13:18.480 television to break ahead. Yeah, TV was still 00:13:18.480 --> 00:13:21.100 king. Social media was around. Twitter was gaining 00:13:21.100 --> 00:13:23.440 traction, sure, but it wasn't the sole engine 00:13:23.440 --> 00:13:26.320 of discovery like TikTok is today. If you wanted 00:13:26.320 --> 00:13:28.559 to guarantee that tens of millions of people 00:13:28.559 --> 00:13:31.000 heard your song, you couldn't just post a viral 00:13:31.000 --> 00:13:33.620 dance. You had to physically stand on the stages 00:13:33.620 --> 00:13:36.600 of daytime talk shows and late night comedy desks. 00:13:36.899 --> 00:13:39.360 It was a brute force approach to promotion. She 00:13:39.360 --> 00:13:41.539 was projecting this confidence live on television 00:13:41.539 --> 00:13:45.159 every single day for months. But, you know, TV 00:13:45.159 --> 00:13:46.879 appearances are fleeting. You watch them once, 00:13:46.960 --> 00:13:49.159 maybe catch a rerun, and they're gone. True. 00:13:49.519 --> 00:13:52.899 The label needed a permanent visual monument 00:13:52.899 --> 00:13:56.220 to this new era of optimism. They needed something 00:13:56.220 --> 00:13:59.679 that would live on Vivo and MTV forever. Which 00:13:59.679 --> 00:14:02.960 brings us to the music video. Ah, yes. The visual 00:14:02.960 --> 00:14:04.960 translation of an era. The article notes the 00:14:04.960 --> 00:14:06.919 music video was directed by Anthony Mandler. 00:14:07.080 --> 00:14:09.299 And it's no coincidence they brought him in. 00:14:09.600 --> 00:14:12.299 He had just done the visuals for her other 2009 00:14:12.299 --> 00:14:15.049 singles, The One. and stronger. That implies 00:14:15.049 --> 00:14:17.590 a really cohesive visual strategy for the entire 00:14:17.590 --> 00:14:20.009 stronger with each tier album campaign. Very 00:14:20.009 --> 00:14:22.529 deliberate. They trusted one director to set 00:14:22.529 --> 00:14:25.629 the aesthetic tone for this entire new era rather 00:14:25.629 --> 00:14:28.029 than bouncing between different visionary directors 00:14:28.029 --> 00:14:31.190 with conflicting styles. Exactly. Mandler understood 00:14:31.190 --> 00:14:34.230 the assignment. The video premiered on Vivo on 00:14:34.230 --> 00:14:37.509 December 8, 2009, coordinating perfectly with 00:14:37.509 --> 00:14:39.769 that artificial digital download release date 00:14:39.769 --> 00:14:42.090 we talked about earlier. This is where the Wikipedia 00:14:42.090 --> 00:14:44.769 article gets wonderfully, almost hilariously 00:14:44.769 --> 00:14:46.210 specific. Oh, I know what you're going to say. 00:14:46.450 --> 00:14:49.049 When detailing the filming locations, the text 00:14:49.049 --> 00:14:51.309 notes it was filmed in various locations throughout 00:14:51.309 --> 00:14:54.409 Somos, California, the coastline, sure, standard 00:14:54.409 --> 00:14:57.990 music video stuff, but then there's this absolute 00:14:57.990 --> 00:15:01.279 gem of a detail. Let's hear it. It states the 00:15:01.279 --> 00:15:04.620 video was filmed, quote, in particular at the 00:15:04.620 --> 00:15:07.399 10 ,000 square foot L shaped sharp residence 00:15:07.399 --> 00:15:10.399 that had been completed in 2005. I love the internet. 00:15:10.440 --> 00:15:13.120 It is so good. I love that some anonymous Wikipedia 00:15:13.120 --> 00:15:15.519 editor cared deeply enough to input the exact 00:15:15.519 --> 00:15:17.600 square footage, the architectural footprint, 00:15:17.779 --> 00:15:19.740 the name of the owners, and the completion year 00:15:19.740 --> 00:15:21.899 of the house used for a one day music video shoot. 00:15:22.080 --> 00:15:25.200 It reads like an architectural digest poll, quote, 00:15:25.519 --> 00:15:28.039 somehow landed in the middle of an R &B song's 00:15:28.039 --> 00:15:30.799 wiki page. It really does. And actually, if you 00:15:30.799 --> 00:15:32.620 look at the references cited at the bottom of 00:15:32.620 --> 00:15:35.179 the article, one of the citations is literally 00:15:35.179 --> 00:15:38.320 an architectural digest piece from April 2008 00:15:38.320 --> 00:15:43.250 titled, Open Audition California. selected designs. 00:15:44.210 --> 00:15:46.470 Some editor cross -referenced an architecture 00:15:46.470 --> 00:15:49.009 magazine to flesh out this music video section. 00:15:49.149 --> 00:15:52.070 It's a hilarious quirk of crowd -sourced information. 00:15:52.169 --> 00:15:54.909 Yeah. But honestly, even though Mary J. Blige 00:15:54.909 --> 00:15:56.730 probably wasn't sitting in a pitch meeting demanding 00:15:56.730 --> 00:16:00.149 an L -shaped residence completed in exactly 2005. 00:16:00.269 --> 00:16:02.889 Right. The aesthetic of that house does perfectly 00:16:02.889 --> 00:16:04.870 serve the message of the song. It really does 00:16:04.870 --> 00:16:06.809 fit the vibe, because think about the visual 00:16:06.809 --> 00:16:09.409 language of 90s R &B pain we discussed earlier. 00:16:09.929 --> 00:16:12.009 When an artist is singing about heartbreak and 00:16:12.009 --> 00:16:14.629 drama, you often expect a music video set in 00:16:14.629 --> 00:16:17.409 a gritty urban landscape, a cramped apartment, 00:16:17.629 --> 00:16:20.210 a rainy street corner, or a dark, moody club. 00:16:20.750 --> 00:16:23.250 Dimly lit. Yeah. The visual language of pain 00:16:23.250 --> 00:16:26.549 is often constricted and dark. But I Am is about 00:16:26.549 --> 00:16:29.059 stepping into your power. So the Location Scout 00:16:29.059 --> 00:16:32.320 finds a brand new sprawling 10 ,000 square foot 00:16:32.320 --> 00:16:35.320 modern mansion on the coast of California. It 00:16:35.320 --> 00:16:38.799 has clean lines, massive windows, wide open spaces. 00:16:38.980 --> 00:16:42.019 It's expansive. Expansive. It's the architectural 00:16:42.019 --> 00:16:45.080 embodiment of leaving the past behind and building 00:16:45.080 --> 00:16:49.340 a new luxurious stable life. The confident visual 00:16:49.340 --> 00:16:51.980 aesthetic perfectly matches the song's lyrical 00:16:51.980 --> 00:16:55.039 message of supreme self -worth. So we have the 00:16:55.039 --> 00:16:57.919 Stargate production, the exhausting TV promo 00:16:57.919 --> 00:17:00.720 tour, and the sprawling architectural music video, 00:17:01.220 --> 00:17:03.679 all working in tandem to deliver one cohesive 00:17:03.679 --> 00:17:06.980 idea. A masterclass in branding. Truly. But as 00:17:06.980 --> 00:17:08.980 with all major campaigns, the way the audience 00:17:08.980 --> 00:17:11.410 receives it isn't always a monolith. Let's look 00:17:11.410 --> 00:17:13.130 at the chart performance, because the data in 00:17:13.130 --> 00:17:15.009 the article revealed a pretty interesting split 00:17:15.009 --> 00:17:17.430 in how this song was consumed. The chart section 00:17:17.430 --> 00:17:20.130 is incredibly revealing. You might assume that 00:17:20.130 --> 00:17:22.329 with a sweeping television blitz across every 00:17:22.329 --> 00:17:24.829 major network, this song would be an automatic 00:17:24.829 --> 00:17:27.569 top 10 mainstream pop hit. You would think so. 00:17:27.730 --> 00:17:29.670 But the numbers show something much more nuanced. 00:17:30.430 --> 00:17:33.029 The song debuted at number 67 on the U .S. Billboard 00:17:33.029 --> 00:17:36.529 Hot 100 in the week ending December 26, 2009. 00:17:36.730 --> 00:17:39.130 and it eventually peaked on that 100 at number 00:17:39.130 --> 00:17:43.309 55. Number 55 on the Hot 100. For a superstar 00:17:43.309 --> 00:17:45.769 of her caliber, and given the massive push we 00:17:45.769 --> 00:17:48.289 just detailed, that might seem surprisingly low 00:17:48.289 --> 00:17:51.069 for the main pop chart. Why didn't it try higher 00:17:51.069 --> 00:17:53.190 there? Well, it really speaks to what mainstream 00:17:53.190 --> 00:17:57.210 pop radio was playing in late 2009. Ah, the context. 00:17:57.269 --> 00:17:59.670 Right. That was the era of peak Lady Gaga, the 00:17:59.670 --> 00:18:02.009 black -eyed peas I got a feel in, and a lot of 00:18:02.009 --> 00:18:04.529 heavy auto -tune club tracks. Very synth -heavy. 00:18:04.970 --> 00:18:08.109 Exactly. A mid -tempo, mature R &B anthem about 00:18:08.109 --> 00:18:10.849 stable relationships was fighting a real uphill 00:18:10.849 --> 00:18:12.970 battle against highly synthesized dance pop. 00:18:13.369 --> 00:18:15.950 However, the Hot 100 is only one metric. The 00:18:15.950 --> 00:18:17.670 text goes on to explain that it was an absolute 00:18:17.670 --> 00:18:20.369 smash hit on specific genre charts. Right. It 00:18:20.369 --> 00:18:22.329 reached number four on the Hot R &B Hip -Hop 00:18:22.329 --> 00:18:24.650 Songs chart. And even more impressively, it went 00:18:24.650 --> 00:18:26.890 all the way to number one on the Adult R &B Songs 00:18:26.890 --> 00:18:30.230 chart. Adult R &B is a very specific radio format. 00:18:30.589 --> 00:18:33.609 It is. It caters to an older, more established 00:18:33.609 --> 00:18:38.029 demographic. Billboard even ranked I Am as the 00:18:38.029 --> 00:18:41.089 12th biggest song of the entire year on their 00:18:41.089 --> 00:18:44.230 2010 year -end adult R &B chart. That tells you 00:18:44.230 --> 00:18:46.369 that while the teenage pop audience might have 00:18:46.369 --> 00:18:49.529 only given it a passing glance, the core R &B 00:18:49.529 --> 00:18:51.789 audience, the people who had been with her through 00:18:51.789 --> 00:18:54.569 the 90s, the people who understood the weight 00:18:54.569 --> 00:18:58.089 of that BAT review, they completely devoured 00:18:58.089 --> 00:19:00.930 the song. It became an anthem for that demographic. 00:19:01.170 --> 00:19:03.750 It's a perfect example of targeted cultural impact 00:19:03.750 --> 00:19:06.990 versus just a generalized pop hit. But the label 00:19:06.990 --> 00:19:09.809 wasn't content to just win the adult R &D demographic. 00:19:09.910 --> 00:19:11.650 They wanted the clubs, too. Oh, they always want 00:19:11.650 --> 00:19:13.930 the clubs. They do. The article notes that the 00:19:13.930 --> 00:19:16.049 song reached number three on the U .S. Dance 00:19:16.049 --> 00:19:19.009 Club Songs chart. Which feels wild on the surface. 00:19:19.269 --> 00:19:22.349 How does a mature mid -tempo Stargate R &B track 00:19:22.349 --> 00:19:25.029 become a top three hit in sweaty nightclubs? 00:19:25.230 --> 00:19:26.950 The answer lies in the track listing section 00:19:26.950 --> 00:19:29.430 of our document. It highlights the remix ecosystem 00:19:29.430 --> 00:19:32.329 of the late 2000s. Let's break that down. The 00:19:32.329 --> 00:19:35.430 track lists show two distinct physical and digital 00:19:35.430 --> 00:19:38.250 products. First, there's the UK CD single, which 00:19:38.250 --> 00:19:40.430 is very traditional. It features the standard 00:19:40.430 --> 00:19:43.029 album version of I Am clocking in at three minutes 00:19:43.029 --> 00:19:45.670 and 23 seconds alongside an instrumental version. 00:19:45.869 --> 00:19:48.130 Standard issue. Right. But then there is the 00:19:48.130 --> 00:19:50.349 digital remix single. And this is where the strategy 00:19:50.349 --> 00:19:52.730 to conquer the dance floor becomes really obvious. 00:19:52.970 --> 00:19:55.230 The digital remix single features four distinct 00:19:55.230 --> 00:19:58.380 tracks, all heavily altering the original. You 00:19:58.380 --> 00:20:01.079 have two remixes by David Aude, a club remix, 00:20:01.240 --> 00:20:04.200 and a radio remix. And you have two remixes by 00:20:04.200 --> 00:20:07.720 Boy Baxter. Again, a club remix and a radio remix. 00:20:07.980 --> 00:20:09.259 Understand the shift, you just have to look at 00:20:09.259 --> 00:20:11.339 the lengths of these tracks. The David Aude club 00:20:11.339 --> 00:20:14.079 remix is six minutes and 28 seconds long. The 00:20:14.079 --> 00:20:16.759 Boy Baxter club remix is five minutes and 42 00:20:16.759 --> 00:20:18.880 seconds long. A six and a half minute track. 00:20:19.049 --> 00:20:21.390 That is a completely different listening experience 00:20:21.390 --> 00:20:23.589 from the three -minute Stargate pop version. 00:20:23.809 --> 00:20:26.130 Entirely different. David Audet is a legendary 00:20:26.130 --> 00:20:28.509 remixer. He's huge. What he does is he takes 00:20:28.509 --> 00:20:31.170 a tightly constructed R &B vocal, strips away 00:20:31.170 --> 00:20:33.690 the original mid -tempo production, and speeds 00:20:33.690 --> 00:20:36.069 up the vocal track slightly. Then he builds an 00:20:36.069 --> 00:20:38.450 entirely new instrumental underneath it. Right. 00:20:38.609 --> 00:20:40.789 He adds what we call four -on -the -floor kick 00:20:40.789 --> 00:20:44.470 drums. That steady, heavy, pulsating bass beat 00:20:44.470 --> 00:20:46.910 that physically forces you to move on a dance 00:20:46.910 --> 00:20:49.900 floor. He has extended instrumental intros and 00:20:49.900 --> 00:20:52.380 hypnotic synthesizer breakdowns, so DJs have 00:20:52.380 --> 00:20:54.400 time to mix the tracks seamlessly into their 00:20:54.400 --> 00:20:57.190 sets. By employing producers like Ade and Baxter, 00:20:57.569 --> 00:21:00.069 the label deliberately built a bridge from the 00:21:00.069 --> 00:21:02.809 adult R &B radio stations straight to the nightclub 00:21:02.809 --> 00:21:05.309 dance floor. Yes. It was a highly conscious strategy. 00:21:05.950 --> 00:21:07.869 That number three peak on the dance club songs 00:21:07.869 --> 00:21:10.630 chart wasn't an accident or an organic groundswell. 00:21:11.029 --> 00:21:13.450 It was engineered by releasing that specific 00:21:13.450 --> 00:21:16.369 digital remix package. It demonstrates a very 00:21:16.369 --> 00:21:18.890 sophisticated understanding of how different 00:21:18.890 --> 00:21:22.420 audiences consume music. The person buying the 00:21:22.420 --> 00:21:25.500 CD single in the UK wants the pristine vocals 00:21:25.500 --> 00:21:28.640 and the emotional resonance. The DJ in a New 00:21:28.640 --> 00:21:31.480 York club needs the six minute a day mix to keep 00:21:31.480 --> 00:21:34.230 the energy up at two in the morning. By providing 00:21:34.230 --> 00:21:37.309 both, the artist maximizes their footprint across 00:21:37.309 --> 00:21:39.829 entirely different subcultures. Speaking of footprints, 00:21:40.309 --> 00:21:42.410 the global reach of this song is another really 00:21:42.410 --> 00:21:45.069 interesting layer. A message of self -worth isn't 00:21:45.069 --> 00:21:47.390 strictly an American concept. No, not at all. 00:21:47.750 --> 00:21:50.190 The weekly charts listed show a truly international 00:21:50.190 --> 00:21:54.029 presence. In Canada, it hit 96. On the European 00:21:54.029 --> 00:21:57.289 Hot 100 Singles chart, it reached 95. In Scotland, 00:21:57.470 --> 00:22:00.369 it hit 69. But then you look further east. On 00:22:00.369 --> 00:22:02.490 the South Korea international chart, it reached 00:22:02.490 --> 00:22:05.430 number 28. And on the Japan Hot 100, it went 00:22:05.430 --> 00:22:07.910 all the way up to number 11. That peak in Japan 00:22:07.910 --> 00:22:10.509 is fantastic. It's so high. Number 11 on the 00:22:10.509 --> 00:22:13.369 Japan Hot 100 demonstrates how a deeply personal 00:22:13.369 --> 00:22:16.009 message rooted in the specific context of an 00:22:16.009 --> 00:22:18.049 American artist's life journey from the 90s to 00:22:18.049 --> 00:22:21.309 the 2000s can completely transcend language and 00:22:21.309 --> 00:22:23.849 cultural barriers. The sonic confidence crafted 00:22:23.849 --> 00:22:26.490 by Stargate combined with the raw power of the 00:22:26.490 --> 00:22:29.309 vocal delivery, it translates universally. You 00:22:29.309 --> 00:22:31.470 don't necessarily need to know her entire backstory 00:22:31.470 --> 00:22:34.130 to feel the triumph in that track. Now, as we 00:22:34.130 --> 00:22:36.069 are looking at these international charts, there 00:22:36.069 --> 00:22:38.349 is a fun little contradiction in the Wikipedia 00:22:38.349 --> 00:22:40.869 text that I have to point out. It's a great example 00:22:40.869 --> 00:22:43.690 of the messy reality of crowdsourced history. 00:22:43.809 --> 00:22:46.130 Oh, I noticed this, too. If you read the prose 00:22:46.130 --> 00:22:48.430 in the chart performance section, it says, quote, 00:22:48.869 --> 00:22:51.769 In the United Kingdom. I am entered and peaked 00:22:51.769 --> 00:22:54.829 on the UK singles chart at number 24 on March 00:22:54.829 --> 00:22:59.150 7, 2010. OK, number 24, a solid top 40 hit in 00:22:59.150 --> 00:23:01.470 the UK. Right. But if you scroll down just a 00:23:01.470 --> 00:23:04.109 little bit to the actual data table labeled weekly 00:23:04.109 --> 00:23:06.430 chart performance, you'll find a row for the 00:23:06.430 --> 00:23:08.990 UK singles chart. And in that table, the peak 00:23:08.990 --> 00:23:13.089 position listed is 34. Ah, the classic wiki discrepancy. 00:23:13.450 --> 00:23:16.109 So the text claims a peak of 24, but the data 00:23:16.109 --> 00:23:18.589 table claims a peak of 34. Exactly. It's right 00:23:18.589 --> 00:23:20.630 there in the same document. Was it 24 or 34? 00:23:20.829 --> 00:23:23.250 Who knows? It's a playful reminder that behind 00:23:23.250 --> 00:23:26.170 every polished article is a crowd of human editors, 00:23:26.569 --> 00:23:28.369 sometimes updating different sections at different 00:23:28.369 --> 00:23:31.069 times, pulling from different archival sources. 00:23:31.609 --> 00:23:33.910 The history of a song is often messy, both in 00:23:33.910 --> 00:23:36.589 its creation and in how we record it. Very true. 00:23:36.730 --> 00:23:39.369 Whether it was 24 or 34, what we know for sure 00:23:39.369 --> 00:23:41.509 is that the song made a dent in the UK market, 00:23:41.730 --> 00:23:44.009 especially considering she flew over to perform 00:23:44.009 --> 00:23:46.410 it on Ellen Carr, chatty man, right around the 00:23:46.410 --> 00:23:49.279 time it was peaking over there. The promo. Never 00:23:49.279 --> 00:23:51.759 stop ever the machinery just keeps churning and 00:23:51.759 --> 00:23:53.900 that brings us full circle to the broader implications 00:23:53.900 --> 00:23:56.279 of what we've been discussing today The story 00:23:56.279 --> 00:23:59.160 of I am as laid out in this article is so much 00:23:59.160 --> 00:24:01.400 more than a list of chart numbers and producer 00:24:01.400 --> 00:24:04.440 credits It's huge. It's a master class in collaboration 00:24:04.440 --> 00:24:07.380 It's the story of a diverse team of writers and 00:24:07.380 --> 00:24:09.799 producers coming together to distill a deeply 00:24:09.799 --> 00:24:13.059 personal emotional shift into a highly structured 00:24:13.059 --> 00:24:16.000 pop anthem It's the story of a turning point 00:24:16.000 --> 00:24:19.029 in a personal narrative. We explored how an artist 00:24:19.029 --> 00:24:21.970 successfully navigated the really dangerous transition 00:24:21.970 --> 00:24:25.190 from building a brand on the angst of the 90s 00:24:25.190 --> 00:24:27.690 to embracing a brighter outlook in the 2000s. 00:24:28.269 --> 00:24:30.970 We saw how this specific song served as the definitive 00:24:30.970 --> 00:24:33.250 boundary line between those two eras without 00:24:33.250 --> 00:24:35.789 losing the authenticity her fans demanded. We 00:24:35.789 --> 00:24:38.950 also examined the song as a case study in exhaustive 00:24:38.950 --> 00:24:42.170 late 2000s television promotion. The relentless 00:24:42.170 --> 00:24:44.589 schedule across morning shows, daytime talk, 00:24:44.730 --> 00:24:47.369 and late night comedy reveals a music industry 00:24:47.369 --> 00:24:50.170 that still heavily relied on the monolithic power 00:24:50.170 --> 00:24:53.970 of broadcast TV to reach every conceivable demographic. 00:24:54.410 --> 00:24:56.849 utilizing windowing strategies to artificially 00:24:56.849 --> 00:24:59.650 drive up digital demand. We broke down the multi 00:24:59.650 --> 00:25:01.990 -format chart success and the remix ecosystem. 00:25:01.990 --> 00:25:04.369 We saw how a song could peak at 55 on the Hot 00:25:04.369 --> 00:25:06.950 100, but simultaneously dominate the adult R 00:25:06.950 --> 00:25:08.769 &B charts and conquer the dance clubs thanks 00:25:08.769 --> 00:25:11.190 to strategic six -minute, four -on -the -floor 00:25:11.190 --> 00:25:13.369 digital remixes by producers like David Audet. 00:25:13.630 --> 00:25:16.650 And, of course, we can't forget the architectural 00:25:16.650 --> 00:25:20.210 aesthetic of filming in a sprawling, modern, 00:25:20.390 --> 00:25:23.789 L -shaped mansion to visually cement this new 00:25:23.720 --> 00:25:26.779 era of expansive confidence. Completed in 2005, 00:25:26.940 --> 00:25:29.140 let's not forget. Never forget. The takeaway 00:25:29.140 --> 00:25:31.859 here is that every piece of media you consume, 00:25:32.099 --> 00:25:34.059 every three minute song on your playlist, every 00:25:34.059 --> 00:25:36.279 music video you stream, every performance you 00:25:36.279 --> 00:25:39.380 catch on late night TV, it has a sprawling hidden 00:25:39.380 --> 00:25:41.420 architecture behind it. There's so much going 00:25:41.420 --> 00:25:44.039 on behind the scenes. There are producers agonizing 00:25:44.039 --> 00:25:47.099 over the synthesizer tone. There are publicists 00:25:47.099 --> 00:25:49.579 booking grueling cross -country flights. There 00:25:49.579 --> 00:25:51.740 are directors scouting specific architectural 00:25:51.740 --> 00:25:54.720 footprints to match the lyric. subtext and the 00:25:54.720 --> 00:25:57.220 remixers tearing the song apart to rebuild it 00:25:57.220 --> 00:25:59.119 for a completely different environment. It's 00:25:59.119 --> 00:26:01.819 a highly coordinated effort by dozens of professionals 00:26:01.819 --> 00:26:05.019 to make you feel a single pure emotion. In this 00:26:05.019 --> 00:26:07.839 case that emotion was absolute unshakable confidence. 00:26:08.220 --> 00:26:09.759 And that leads me to a final thought I want to 00:26:09.759 --> 00:26:12.059 leave you with today. We've talked about how 00:26:12.059 --> 00:26:14.380 this artist had to rebuild her creative machinery 00:26:14.380 --> 00:26:17.420 to reflect her newfound optimism. She had to 00:26:17.420 --> 00:26:20.059 find new collaborators like Stargate, she had 00:26:20.059 --> 00:26:22.480 to pivot her visual style, she had to mission 00:26:22.480 --> 00:26:26.440 new dance remixes. It takes deliberate work to 00:26:26.440 --> 00:26:29.240 shed your past pain and project a brighter outlook. 00:26:29.720 --> 00:26:31.559 It takes intentional construction. You can't 00:26:31.559 --> 00:26:34.259 just flip a switch. You have to build the environment 00:26:34.259 --> 00:26:37.079 and assemble the team that supports the new version 00:26:37.079 --> 00:26:39.900 of you. Exactly. So this on the journey we just 00:26:39.900 --> 00:26:42.740 unpacked, ask yourself, if you were to write 00:26:42.740 --> 00:26:45.880 an anthem for your current era of life, who would 00:26:45.880 --> 00:26:48.700 be on your production team? I like that. Who 00:26:48.700 --> 00:26:50.779 are the specific people you would trust to help 00:26:50.779 --> 00:26:53.400 you refine your message? And taking a cue from 00:26:53.400 --> 00:26:56.680 that incredibly detailed Wikipedia editor, what 00:26:56.680 --> 00:27:00.000 kind of 10 ,000 square foot metaphorical house 00:27:00.000 --> 00:27:02.339 would you film your video in to show the world 00:27:02.339 --> 00:27:04.779 exactly who you are right now? The architecture 00:27:04.779 --> 00:27:07.299 of your life is yours to design. We want to thank 00:27:07.299 --> 00:27:09.400 you so much for joining us on this deep dive 00:27:09.400 --> 00:27:11.579 into the making, the meaning, and the mechanics 00:27:11.579 --> 00:27:14.640 of a 2009 R &B classic. It's been an absolute 00:27:14.640 --> 00:27:17.000 pleasure unpacking this with you. Until next 00:27:17.000 --> 00:27:19.359 time, keep exploring the hidden structures behind 00:27:19.359 --> 00:27:21.779 the art you love. And as always, stay curious.