WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.660 Welcome back to the Deep Dive. We are so glad 00:00:02.660 --> 00:00:04.240 you could join us today because we have a really, 00:00:04.280 --> 00:00:06.860 well, a really peculiar mission ahead of us. 00:00:06.940 --> 00:00:10.400 We really do. Yeah. We are taking a single, seemingly 00:00:10.400 --> 00:00:13.539 straightforward Wikipedia article, pulling it 00:00:13.539 --> 00:00:16.100 apart, and just looking at the raw data to see 00:00:16.100 --> 00:00:18.000 what kind of story it tells. Right. And today 00:00:18.000 --> 00:00:20.420 we're focusing our attention on a very specific 00:00:20.420 --> 00:00:24.260 digital artifact from the year 2000. We're looking 00:00:24.260 --> 00:00:26.719 at the source data for a song called Pass You 00:00:26.719 --> 00:00:30.039 By from the American R &B quartet Boyz II Second 00:00:30.039 --> 00:00:35.079 Men. It's a surprisingly layered piece of music 00:00:35.079 --> 00:00:37.060 history to examine. On the surface, what you 00:00:37.060 --> 00:00:39.979 have here is a fairly concise Wikipedia stub. 00:00:40.539 --> 00:00:42.700 you know about one single track yeah just a stub 00:00:42.700 --> 00:00:45.399 exactly but when you start cross -referencing 00:00:45.399 --> 00:00:47.659 the data points the release dates the specific 00:00:47.659 --> 00:00:50.140 chart numbers the varied track lengths the personnel 00:00:50.140 --> 00:00:53.060 credits it actually maps out a much larger narrative 00:00:53.060 --> 00:00:55.700 about the mechanics of the music industry right 00:00:55.700 --> 00:00:58.020 at the turn of the millennium and that is the 00:00:58.020 --> 00:01:00.320 goal today we are going to tease out that narrative 00:01:00.320 --> 00:01:02.920 for you To give you a sense of the central mystery 00:01:02.920 --> 00:01:05.420 we are exploring, we're looking at a song that 00:01:05.420 --> 00:01:08.260 completely failed to make the main U .S. Billboard 00:01:08.260 --> 00:01:11.359 Hot 100 chart. Completely missed it. Missed it 00:01:11.359 --> 00:01:14.659 entirely. Yet somehow it managed to secure a 00:01:14.659 --> 00:01:17.700 Grammy nomination. Which is wild. It is. I found 00:01:17.700 --> 00:01:20.359 this commercial and critical disconnect really 00:01:20.359 --> 00:01:23.939 puzzling. Okay, let's unpack this. Let's start 00:01:23.939 --> 00:01:26.959 by laying out the basic DNA of the track. Based 00:01:26.959 --> 00:01:29.609 on the source material. Pass You By was released 00:01:29.609 --> 00:01:33.409 on July 11, 2000, under the Universal label. 00:01:33.569 --> 00:01:35.349 And to understand the weight of that release 00:01:35.349 --> 00:01:37.629 date, we should really look at where this fits 00:01:37.629 --> 00:01:40.189 into the group's overall chronology. According 00:01:40.189 --> 00:01:42.590 to the data, this track is pulled from their 00:01:42.590 --> 00:01:44.950 fifth studio album. Right. If we look at the 00:01:44.950 --> 00:01:47.109 timeline of their preceding and subsequent singles, 00:01:47.290 --> 00:01:49.590 Pass You By sits right in the middle of a... 00:01:50.040 --> 00:01:53.340 a specific transitionary period. It follows their 00:01:53.340 --> 00:01:56.439 1998 single, I Will Get There. 98, okay. Yeah, 00:01:56.519 --> 00:01:59.799 1998. And it precedes a track called Thank You 00:01:59.799 --> 00:02:01.760 in Advance, which was also released in 2000. 00:02:02.140 --> 00:02:04.840 So the data gives us a picture of a group coming 00:02:04.840 --> 00:02:07.549 off a two -year gap between singles. And a two 00:02:07.549 --> 00:02:10.650 -year gap at that specific era in pop music, 00:02:10.810 --> 00:02:13.289 I mean, that's an eternity. Oh, absolutely. The 00:02:13.289 --> 00:02:15.830 source lists this group as the powerhouse behind 00:02:15.830 --> 00:02:18.490 these massive era -defining hits like End of 00:02:18.490 --> 00:02:20.849 the Road, I'll Make Love to You, and One Sweet 00:02:20.849 --> 00:02:24.289 Day. So stepping back into the arena in the summer 00:02:24.289 --> 00:02:27.069 of 2000 after two years away, that carries a 00:02:27.069 --> 00:02:29.599 lot of weight. It's a huge comeback moment. But 00:02:29.599 --> 00:02:31.719 what I found particularly notable about the creation 00:02:31.719 --> 00:02:34.300 of Pass You By is the concentration of control 00:02:34.300 --> 00:02:37.139 behind the scenes. This track was entirely written 00:02:37.139 --> 00:02:38.939 and produced by just one member of the group. 00:02:39.080 --> 00:02:41.780 Sean Stockman. Yes, Sean Stockman. What's fascinating 00:02:41.780 --> 00:02:44.520 here is how one member taking the creative reins 00:02:44.520 --> 00:02:47.539 fundamentally alters the architecture of the 00:02:47.539 --> 00:02:51.039 music. We are talking about a quartet whose historical 00:02:51.039 --> 00:02:53.860 brand is built entirely on the concept of intricate, 00:02:54.080 --> 00:02:56.780 four -part vocal harmony. A collective presence, 00:02:57.039 --> 00:02:59.810 basically. Right, exactly. But the credits for 00:02:59.810 --> 00:03:03.069 this specific track isolate Sean Stockman as 00:03:03.069 --> 00:03:05.729 both the sole songwriter and the sole producer. 00:03:06.289 --> 00:03:09.310 It shifts the dynamic from a collaborative workshop 00:03:09.310 --> 00:03:13.469 to a singular, isolated vision dictating the 00:03:13.469 --> 00:03:15.889 sound for the entire group. It really makes you 00:03:15.889 --> 00:03:18.530 wonder how that singular vision translated to 00:03:18.530 --> 00:03:21.490 the actual final cut of the song. Because the 00:03:21.490 --> 00:03:24.370 data shows us two distinct lengths for this track. 00:03:24.629 --> 00:03:27.120 Yes, the timings are very telling. There is the 00:03:27.120 --> 00:03:30.120 main version, which runs 4 minutes and 26 seconds. 00:03:30.340 --> 00:03:32.639 And then there is a radio version that has been 00:03:32.639 --> 00:03:35.819 trimmed down to 3 minutes and 59 seconds. Barely 00:03:35.819 --> 00:03:38.759 under 4 minutes. Exactly. That 27 -second difference 00:03:38.759 --> 00:03:41.919 is highly deliberate. Getting a track just under 00:03:41.919 --> 00:03:44.740 that 4 -minute psychological barrier, it suggests 00:03:44.740 --> 00:03:46.479 they were actively trying to craft something 00:03:46.479 --> 00:03:48.939 strictly for the airwaves. That is a very standard 00:03:48.939 --> 00:03:51.479 industry maneuver. But it raises questions about 00:03:51.479 --> 00:03:54.120 what was sacrificed to hit that 3 minute and 00:03:54.120 --> 00:03:57.039 59 second mark. What do you mean? When a producer 00:03:57.039 --> 00:03:58.939 like Stockman crafts a four and a half minute 00:03:58.939 --> 00:04:02.199 R &B track, that length usually accommodates 00:04:02.199 --> 00:04:04.639 something specific. Maybe an extended vocal vamp 00:04:04.639 --> 00:04:07.560 at the end, a longer instrumental bridge, or 00:04:07.560 --> 00:04:09.580 a slow build introduction. And you lose that 00:04:09.580 --> 00:04:12.699 in the edit. Right. Trimming 27 seconds requires 00:04:12.699 --> 00:04:16.079 surgical cuts. You are altering the pacing and 00:04:16.079 --> 00:04:19.139 the breathing room of the song solely to appease 00:04:19.139 --> 00:04:21.939 program directors who need to fit more commercials 00:04:21.939 --> 00:04:25.680 into an hour of broadcasting. Wow. It is a compromise 00:04:25.680 --> 00:04:28.139 between the artistic vision and the realities 00:04:28.139 --> 00:04:30.819 of distribution. But speaking of how the group 00:04:30.819 --> 00:04:32.620 presented themselves, there's a very specific 00:04:32.620 --> 00:04:34.920 detail buried down in the data box of this Wikipedia 00:04:34.920 --> 00:04:37.120 article that we really need to examine. The member 00:04:37.120 --> 00:04:39.959 roster. Yes, the roster. If you scroll to the 00:04:39.959 --> 00:04:42.240 official list of members for Boys to the Second 00:04:42.240 --> 00:04:44.519 Men in the Source, it provides five names. Right. 00:04:44.579 --> 00:04:47.139 It lists Nathan Morris, Sean Stockman, Wanya 00:04:47.139 --> 00:04:50.000 Morris, Mark Nelson, and Michael McCaffrey. Five 00:04:50.000 --> 00:04:54.379 distinct individuals. Five people. pass you by 00:04:54.379 --> 00:04:57.160 is pulled from has a very definitive, unavoidable 00:04:57.160 --> 00:04:59.779 title. The album is called Nathan Michael Shawn 00:04:59.779 --> 00:05:02.879 Wanya. Just the four first names of those specific 00:05:02.879 --> 00:05:05.000 members. It is such an aggressive statement. 00:05:05.199 --> 00:05:07.319 You have an official source roster documenting 00:05:07.319 --> 00:05:09.939 five members, prominently including Mark Nelson. 00:05:10.180 --> 00:05:13.879 But the album title acts as a marquee that explicitly 00:05:13.879 --> 00:05:17.779 claims only four names. Nathan Michael Shawn 00:05:17.779 --> 00:05:21.139 Wanya. It completely leaves Nelson out of the 00:05:21.139 --> 00:05:24.220 core identity of that project. I am curious how 00:05:24.220 --> 00:05:27.860 you interpret a hyper specific, eponymous album 00:05:27.860 --> 00:05:30.519 title like that, especially considering the five 00:05:30.519 --> 00:05:33.339 man historical roster. It functions as a profound 00:05:33.339 --> 00:05:36.209 branding declaration. When a legacy act titles 00:05:36.209 --> 00:05:38.529 their fifth studio album with merely the four 00:05:38.529 --> 00:05:40.529 first names of its members, they are drawing 00:05:40.529 --> 00:05:43.430 a very hard, very public line in the sand. About 00:05:43.430 --> 00:05:45.829 who belongs in the group. Precisely. About who 00:05:45.829 --> 00:05:47.870 constitutes the nucleus of the group at that 00:05:47.870 --> 00:05:50.870 exact cultural moment in 2000. They're not hiding 00:05:50.870 --> 00:05:53.350 behind a conceptual album title. They are explicitly 00:05:53.350 --> 00:05:56.029 telling the consumer this is the definitive lineup. 00:05:56.189 --> 00:05:59.189 It's brutal but effective. It is. The tension 00:05:59.189 --> 00:06:02.160 between the encyclopedic data. which must neutrally 00:06:02.160 --> 00:06:05.019 track all five members, and the marketed identity 00:06:05.019 --> 00:06:07.639 of the album, which fiercely claims only four, 00:06:07.839 --> 00:06:10.639 highlights how bands have to actively curate 00:06:10.639 --> 00:06:13.759 their own mythology. It is essentially a reintroduction. 00:06:13.860 --> 00:06:16.680 After a two -year hiatus, they are returning 00:06:16.680 --> 00:06:19.680 with a singular producer in Sean Stockman and 00:06:19.680 --> 00:06:22.000 an album title that strips away any ambiguity 00:06:22.000 --> 00:06:24.399 about who was in the booth. It sets the stage 00:06:24.399 --> 00:06:26.800 for a massive comeback. Or so you would think. 00:06:27.290 --> 00:06:29.889 But as we move into how the public actually received 00:06:29.889 --> 00:06:32.790 this meticulously branded, tightly produced track, 00:06:32.970 --> 00:06:35.810 we run into the central paradox of our deep dive. 00:06:36.230 --> 00:06:38.009 I want to look at the commercial performance. 00:06:38.329 --> 00:06:40.310 The numbers are pretty jarring. The source is 00:06:40.310 --> 00:06:43.029 very blunt. It classifies the single as commercially 00:06:43.029 --> 00:06:45.949 unsuccessful, noting that it completely failed 00:06:45.949 --> 00:06:48.370 to chart on the main U .S. Billboard Hot 100. 00:06:48.750 --> 00:06:51.560 That is a stark piece of data to process. For 00:06:51.560 --> 00:06:54.399 a group whose legacy is built on completely dominating 00:06:54.399 --> 00:06:57.459 that specific chart throughout the 1990s, missing 00:06:57.459 --> 00:07:00.480 the bottom rung of the Hot 100 entirely signals 00:07:00.480 --> 00:07:02.379 a massive shift in their commercial momentum. 00:07:02.660 --> 00:07:06.019 It didn't entirely vanish, though. The data shows 00:07:06.019 --> 00:07:08.540 it peaked at number four on a chart called the 00:07:08.540 --> 00:07:11.850 bubbling under Hot 100. I think we need to linger 00:07:11.850 --> 00:07:13.769 on this concept for a moment. Because it's a 00:07:13.769 --> 00:07:16.089 very specific kind of chart. Yeah, bubbly under 00:07:16.089 --> 00:07:19.170 is such an evocative industry term. It essentially 00:07:19.170 --> 00:07:21.110 means the track was sitting right at position 00:07:21.110 --> 00:07:24.649 104 in the country. The psychology of the bubbling 00:07:24.649 --> 00:07:27.689 under chart is fascinating. It functions as a 00:07:27.689 --> 00:07:31.029 25 position extension of the main chart. It tracks 00:07:31.029 --> 00:07:33.709 the songs that are simmering just below the threshold 00:07:33.709 --> 00:07:36.529 of mainstream visibility. Just right there on 00:07:36.529 --> 00:07:38.930 the edge. Right. Hitting number four on that 00:07:38.930 --> 00:07:41.209 list means the track was right at the membrane 00:07:41.209 --> 00:07:44.610 of success. It is the purgatory of pop music. 00:07:44.949 --> 00:07:47.629 You are close enough to sense the momentum, but 00:07:47.629 --> 00:07:49.790 you simply cannot break through the surface tension 00:07:49.790 --> 00:07:52.629 to reach the wider culture. Purgatory is a great 00:07:52.629 --> 00:07:54.509 way to put it. It paints a picture of a song 00:07:54.509 --> 00:07:57.110 that was just fighting for oxygen. We also see 00:07:57.110 --> 00:07:59.670 it found some very localized footing in genre 00:07:59.670 --> 00:08:02.069 -specific U .S. markets. It had some traction 00:08:02.069 --> 00:08:04.680 there. Yeah, it managed to hit number 27 on the 00:08:04.680 --> 00:08:08.040 US hot R &B hip hop songs chart, and it climbed 00:08:08.040 --> 00:08:10.959 to number 39 on US pop airplay. It was clearly 00:08:10.959 --> 00:08:13.600 getting spun by DJs, but it wasn't converting 00:08:13.600 --> 00:08:16.259 into that undeniable cross -country consumer 00:08:16.259 --> 00:08:18.660 heat. And if you pivot to look at the data outside 00:08:18.660 --> 00:08:21.550 the United States. The picture gets even more 00:08:21.550 --> 00:08:23.990 fragmented. The international charts demonstrate 00:08:23.990 --> 00:08:26.670 how wildly different regional markets can react 00:08:26.670 --> 00:08:29.189 to the exact same piece of audio. Let's run through 00:08:29.189 --> 00:08:31.089 those international numbers because the spread 00:08:31.089 --> 00:08:33.830 is incredible. Over in the Netherlands, the track 00:08:33.830 --> 00:08:36.289 barely registered, peaking down at number 98 00:08:36.289 --> 00:08:39.149 on the single top 100. Barely hang on. It essentially 00:08:39.149 --> 00:08:42.110 just scraped the bottom. In France, on the Sunny 00:08:42.110 --> 00:08:44.789 P chart, it performed a bit better, landing solidly 00:08:44.789 --> 00:08:47.330 in the lower mid -pack at number 73. But then 00:08:47.330 --> 00:08:49.629 if you look at the ARA chart in Australia, pass 00:08:49.629 --> 00:08:51.870 you by rockets all the way up to number 13. That 00:08:51.870 --> 00:08:54.870 geographic disparity is worth analyzing. An American 00:08:54.870 --> 00:08:57.230 track that is practically invisible to the mainstream 00:08:57.230 --> 00:08:59.990 charts in its home country, and barely hanging 00:08:59.990 --> 00:09:03.149 on by a thread at 98 in the Netherlands, is somehow 00:09:03.149 --> 00:09:06.279 a top 15 hit in the Southern Hemisphere. It's 00:09:06.279 --> 00:09:09.340 wild. It nearly cracked the top 10 for the Australian 00:09:09.340 --> 00:09:11.879 listening public. It suggests that Stockman's 00:09:11.879 --> 00:09:15.039 specific production choices, whatever vocal arrangements 00:09:15.039 --> 00:09:17.100 or rhythmic elements he built into the track, 00:09:17.320 --> 00:09:19.940 somehow perfectly aligned with the cultural mood 00:09:19.940 --> 00:09:23.279 of Australian radio in the year 2000, while completely 00:09:23.279 --> 00:09:25.360 missing the mark for consumers in the Netherlands 00:09:25.360 --> 00:09:28.340 or the U .S. Here's where it gets really interesting. 00:09:28.620 --> 00:09:31.429 We have established the commercial reality. The 00:09:31.429 --> 00:09:34.269 track missed the Hot 100, bubbled under in Purgatory, 00:09:34.529 --> 00:09:36.610 and had a highly fractured global reception. 00:09:37.129 --> 00:09:40.169 But according to our source, when the 2001 Grammy 00:09:40.169 --> 00:09:42.929 Awards were announced, Pass You By secured an 00:09:42.929 --> 00:09:45.289 official nomination for best R &B performance 00:09:45.289 --> 00:09:48.289 by a duo or group. This is the ultimate disconnect 00:09:48.289 --> 00:09:50.350 of the data. You have two completely opposed 00:09:50.350 --> 00:09:52.809 metrics of validation operating at the same time. 00:09:52.870 --> 00:09:54.870 The sales versus the critical acclaim. Exactly. 00:09:55.399 --> 00:09:57.419 The billboard charts, the pop airplane numbers, 00:09:57.700 --> 00:10:00.379 the ARIA charts, these are fundamentally consumer 00:10:00.379 --> 00:10:03.759 metrics. They track mass appeal, passive listening, 00:10:03.940 --> 00:10:06.899 and broad market saturation. The Grammy nominations 00:10:06.899 --> 00:10:09.519 operate on an entirely different axis of peer 00:10:09.519 --> 00:10:12.240 review and industry assessment. It is the gap 00:10:12.240 --> 00:10:14.779 between what the masses will buy and what the 00:10:14.779 --> 00:10:17.840 experts consider technically brilliant. Precisely. 00:10:18.159 --> 00:10:20.139 The general consumer base might not have felt 00:10:20.139 --> 00:10:22.659 compelled by the track, but the industry professionals 00:10:22.659 --> 00:10:24.980 sitting on the voting committees listened to 00:10:24.980 --> 00:10:28.080 the architecture of the song. They heard the 00:10:28.080 --> 00:10:31.159 actual craft. Yes, they heard the specific harmonic 00:10:31.159 --> 00:10:33.440 structures, the production fidelity, the vocal 00:10:33.440 --> 00:10:35.919 performances that Sean Stockman arranged and 00:10:35.919 --> 00:10:38.379 produced by himself, and they determined it was 00:10:38.379 --> 00:10:40.919 among the highest tier of R &B performance for 00:10:40.919 --> 00:10:43.740 that entire year. It is a massive validation 00:10:43.740 --> 00:10:46.279 of the technical craft, completely independent 00:10:46.279 --> 00:10:48.860 of the commercial failure. You can imagine the 00:10:48.860 --> 00:10:50.899 internal whiplash for the label and the group, 00:10:51.080 --> 00:10:53.919 watching the track stall out at number 104 in 00:10:53.919 --> 00:10:57.139 your home country, only to receive a formal acknowledgement 00:10:57.139 --> 00:10:59.720 from your peers that the art itself was top tier. 00:10:59.940 --> 00:11:01.759 It had to be confusing. But we should be clear. 00:11:01.919 --> 00:11:04.360 Universal Records did not just passively let 00:11:04.360 --> 00:11:07.340 this song bubble under. They fought for it. The 00:11:07.340 --> 00:11:09.659 source data provides the exact rollout strategy 00:11:09.659 --> 00:11:12.139 and is a fascinating timeline of a label trying 00:11:12.139 --> 00:11:15.139 everything they can to force a hit. Let me walk 00:11:15.139 --> 00:11:17.240 you through these staggered release dates. The 00:11:17.240 --> 00:11:19.960 timeline reveals a lot about your internal strategy. 00:11:20.240 --> 00:11:22.240 Please break it down. It kicks off in the middle 00:11:22.240 --> 00:11:26.000 of summer. On July 11, 2000, Universal pushes 00:11:26.000 --> 00:11:28.620 the track to U .S. rhythmic contemporary radio. 00:11:29.120 --> 00:11:32.220 Then we see a shift to physical media. On August 00:11:32.220 --> 00:11:36.100 23, 2000, Japan gets a specific physical CD release. 00:11:36.460 --> 00:11:38.179 Moving to the international physical market. 00:11:38.419 --> 00:11:41.379 Right. Then, as we move into the fall, the label 00:11:41.379 --> 00:11:44.340 pivots back to the U .S. with a completely different 00:11:44.340 --> 00:11:48.250 radio strategy. On September 11, 2000, they push 00:11:48.250 --> 00:11:50.710 the song to U .S. adult contemporary and hot 00:11:50.710 --> 00:11:53.710 adult contemporary radio. And then the very next 00:11:53.710 --> 00:11:56.789 day, September 12, they ship it to U .S. contemporary 00:11:56.789 --> 00:11:59.129 hit radio. If we connect this to the bigger picture, 00:11:59.309 --> 00:12:02.049 you're watching a major record label scramble 00:12:02.049 --> 00:12:04.029 across an entire financial quarter to find an 00:12:04.029 --> 00:12:06.269 audience for a struggling asset. They were relentless. 00:12:06.710 --> 00:12:08.830 They were. Let's look at those radio formats 00:12:08.830 --> 00:12:11.970 conceptually. In July, targeting Rhythmic Contemporary 00:12:11.970 --> 00:12:14.049 means they were trying to position it as a summer 00:12:14.049 --> 00:12:16.929 groove, something to be played alongside up -tempo 00:12:16.929 --> 00:12:18.909 hip -hop and dance tracks. But the data showed 00:12:18.909 --> 00:12:21.450 that wasn't working. Right. But they didn't pull 00:12:21.450 --> 00:12:23.610 the plug. They waited for the season to change, 00:12:23.830 --> 00:12:26.950 and in September, they aimed at Adult Contemporary. 00:12:27.490 --> 00:12:30.250 That is a completely different demographic. They 00:12:30.250 --> 00:12:32.509 were looking for an older, perhaps more mellow 00:12:32.509 --> 00:12:35.049 audience listening during their evening commute. 00:12:35.389 --> 00:12:37.070 And then immediately following that up the next 00:12:37.070 --> 00:12:39.850 day by throwing it at contemporary hit radio, 00:12:40.009 --> 00:12:42.370 which is the absolute mainstream pop format. 00:12:42.409 --> 00:12:44.129 They were practically throwing darts at different 00:12:44.129 --> 00:12:46.629 demographics. It is an aggressive, multi -front 00:12:46.629 --> 00:12:49.750 campaign. Pushing an R &B track to rhythmic, 00:12:49.909 --> 00:12:52.730 then adult contemporary, then mainstream pop, 00:12:52.970 --> 00:12:56.110 across three months, shows a label that is refusing 00:12:56.110 --> 00:12:58.769 to accept the bubbling understatus. They were 00:12:58.769 --> 00:13:00.750 looking for any format that would champion the 00:13:00.750 --> 00:13:03.470 song and drag it onto the Hot 100. That level 00:13:03.470 --> 00:13:05.529 of investment extended to the physical singles 00:13:05.529 --> 00:13:08.029 as well. The data gives us the track listing 00:13:08.029 --> 00:13:10.970 for the European CD single, and it is a treasure 00:13:10.970 --> 00:13:13.389 trove of physical media strategy. The European 00:13:13.389 --> 00:13:15.970 CD single was a big deal back then. Oh, absolutely. 00:13:16.149 --> 00:13:19.049 If you picked up this CD in Europe, you weren't 00:13:19.049 --> 00:13:21.309 just getting the main song. Track one is the 00:13:21.309 --> 00:13:23.669 tighter radio edit we discussed earlier. Track 00:13:23.669 --> 00:13:26.710 two is a separate song called Darlin'. Track 00:13:26.710 --> 00:13:29.210 three is a song titled Rose and a Honeycomb. 00:13:29.850 --> 00:13:32.269 And track four is the instrumental version of 00:13:32.269 --> 00:13:35.210 Pass You By. Packaging a single like that was 00:13:35.210 --> 00:13:37.590 an art form in itself. Offering an instrumental 00:13:37.590 --> 00:13:40.690 track is a particularly interesting choice, especially 00:13:40.690 --> 00:13:43.269 in light of Sean Stockman's solo production credit. 00:13:43.509 --> 00:13:45.990 How so? It invites the listener to strip away 00:13:45.990 --> 00:13:48.850 the famous boys, the second men vocal harmonies 00:13:48.850 --> 00:13:51.509 and critically examine the underlying beat, the 00:13:51.509 --> 00:13:53.549 bass lines, and the percussion that Stockman 00:13:53.549 --> 00:13:56.330 built. It highlights the producer rather than 00:13:56.330 --> 00:13:58.980 just the singers. It definitely adds value for 00:13:58.980 --> 00:14:01.519 the superfan. But while we are looking at this 00:14:01.519 --> 00:14:04.120 specific track list, I have to point out a fascinating 00:14:04.120 --> 00:14:06.639 meta -fact about the Wikipedia ecosystem itself. 00:14:06.980 --> 00:14:10.039 Oh, about the third track. Yes. If you attempt 00:14:10.039 --> 00:14:12.679 to research that third track on the CD, Rose 00:14:12.679 --> 00:14:15.320 and a Honeycomb, by searching for it on Wikipedia, 00:14:15.799 --> 00:14:18.659 it doesn't actually have its own dedicated page. 00:14:19.240 --> 00:14:21.500 The infrastructure of the website automatically 00:14:21.500 --> 00:14:24.159 redirects your search straight back to the main 00:14:24.159 --> 00:14:26.559 article for Pass You By. That is a brilliant 00:14:26.559 --> 00:14:29.340 example of how digital archives prioritize cultural 00:14:29.340 --> 00:14:33.320 memory. A song like Rose and a Honeycomb objectively 00:14:33.320 --> 00:14:36.580 exists. It was pressed onto physical CDs and 00:14:36.580 --> 00:14:39.340 distributed in Europe. It is real music. It is. 00:14:39.399 --> 00:14:41.980 But in the hierarchy of the Internet's encyclopedic 00:14:41.980 --> 00:14:44.399 data, it does not warrant its own independent 00:14:44.399 --> 00:14:47.539 existence. It only survives as a digital footnote, 00:14:47.659 --> 00:14:50.240 entirely absorbed by the gravitational pull of 00:14:50.240 --> 00:14:52.149 the lead single it was attached to. It really 00:14:52.149 --> 00:14:54.870 emphasizes how easily secondary art can be swallowed 00:14:54.870 --> 00:14:57.269 by the main product. And speaking of secondary 00:14:57.269 --> 00:14:58.929 elements that support the main product, there 00:14:58.929 --> 00:15:01.190 is one final detail hidden deep in the category 00:15:01.190 --> 00:15:03.470 links at the very bottom of the source material. 00:15:03.690 --> 00:15:06.909 The visual component? Yes. The data tags this 00:15:06.909 --> 00:15:09.389 article with a category confirming a music video 00:15:09.389 --> 00:15:12.529 directed by Darren Grant. It is a brief breadcrumb, 00:15:12.610 --> 00:15:15.309 but it verifies that Universal funded a complete 00:15:15.309 --> 00:15:18.169 visual component for this rollout. It compounds 00:15:18.169 --> 00:15:20.409 the narrative of the label's heavy investment. 00:15:20.909 --> 00:15:23.029 They didn't just spend months pivoting across 00:15:23.029 --> 00:15:25.730 three different American radio formats. They 00:15:25.730 --> 00:15:28.409 coordinated a physical CD release in Japan, packed 00:15:28.409 --> 00:15:31.009 European singles with B -sides and instrumentals, 00:15:31.049 --> 00:15:33.450 and financed a visual production with a name 00:15:33.450 --> 00:15:36.230 director. A massive push. The sheer machinery 00:15:36.230 --> 00:15:38.590 of a major label was churning behind this track, 00:15:38.789 --> 00:15:41.250 making its inability to cross the threshold of 00:15:41.250 --> 00:15:43.990 the Hot 100 an even more compelling piece of 00:15:43.990 --> 00:15:46.120 industry data to study. So what does this all 00:15:46.120 --> 00:15:48.200 mean? We started by looking at a brief data stub 00:15:48.200 --> 00:15:50.960 from the year 2000, and it opened up a complex 00:15:50.960 --> 00:15:53.679 industry narrative. We unpacked a trap written 00:15:53.679 --> 00:15:55.919 and produced entirely by a single band member, 00:15:56.100 --> 00:15:58.679 Sean Stockman. A total shift in creative control. 00:15:58.960 --> 00:16:01.419 We looked at a legacy group navigating a two 00:16:01.419 --> 00:16:04.059 -year hiatus by aggressively branding an album 00:16:04.059 --> 00:16:07.129 with exactly four names. Nathan Michael Sean 00:16:07.129 --> 00:16:10.210 Wanya, despite historical data logging, five 00:16:10.210 --> 00:16:13.370 members. We tracked a song that triggered a massive 00:16:13.370 --> 00:16:16.250 label push across global markets and radio formats, 00:16:16.529 --> 00:16:19.129 but ultimately stalled at number 104 in the U 00:16:19.129 --> 00:16:22.370 .S. Only to achieve top 15 status in Australia. 00:16:22.690 --> 00:16:26.090 Exactly. And earn a Grammy nomination for best 00:16:26.090 --> 00:16:28.830 R &B performance. It serves as a highly detailed 00:16:28.830 --> 00:16:31.309 case study on the nature of validation. And I 00:16:31.309 --> 00:16:33.289 think there is a tangible takeaway here for you, 00:16:33.389 --> 00:16:35.980 the listener. It illustrates perfect. that success 00:16:35.980 --> 00:16:39.039 is rarely a monolithic, one -dimensional metric. 00:16:39.159 --> 00:16:41.679 It really is multifaceted. When we evaluate our 00:16:41.679 --> 00:16:44.100 own projects or careers, it is easy to fixate 00:16:44.100 --> 00:16:46.480 on the most obvious, mainstream metric of success, 00:16:46.720 --> 00:16:49.100 the equivalent of the Billboard Hot 100. And 00:16:49.100 --> 00:16:51.480 when we fall short of that specific metric, the 00:16:51.480 --> 00:16:54.200 instinct is to label the entire endeavor a failure. 00:16:54.419 --> 00:16:58.059 Which is such a trap. It is. But the data behind 00:16:58.059 --> 00:17:00.820 PassYouBy demonstrates that an effort can completely 00:17:00.820 --> 00:17:03.820 miss the mark with the mass market while simultaneously 00:17:03.820 --> 00:17:07.180 achieving undeniable success in an unexpected 00:17:07.180 --> 00:17:10.519 geographic region, or more importantly, earning 00:17:10.519 --> 00:17:12.519 the highest level of critical respect from the 00:17:12.519 --> 00:17:15.720 experts in your specific field. It is a reminder 00:17:15.720 --> 00:17:18.059 to look at all the charts before you decide if 00:17:18.059 --> 00:17:20.400 you have failed. You might be struggling to break 00:17:20.400 --> 00:17:22.680 through the mainstream surface tension, but your 00:17:22.680 --> 00:17:25.240 peers might be looking at your work and recognizing 00:17:25.240 --> 00:17:28.160 its technical brilliance. This raises an important 00:17:28.160 --> 00:17:30.180 question and is the thought I want to leave you 00:17:30.180 --> 00:17:32.740 with as we wrap up our analysis. We established 00:17:32.740 --> 00:17:35.380 early on that Sean Stockman took sole writing 00:17:35.380 --> 00:17:37.980 and producing duties for this track, shifting 00:17:37.980 --> 00:17:40.259 away from the group's collective approach. A 00:17:40.259 --> 00:17:42.779 major risk. By isolating that creative control 00:17:42.779 --> 00:17:46.569 into a single... compromised vision did he inherently 00:17:46.569 --> 00:17:49.529 sacrifice the broad frictionless appeal required 00:17:49.529 --> 00:17:53.309 to top the consumer charts? Does demanding total 00:17:53.309 --> 00:17:55.589 creative control sometimes mean you willingly 00:17:55.589 --> 00:17:58.289 forfeit mainstream ubiquity, knowing that in 00:17:58.289 --> 00:18:00.470 exchange you are crafting something technically 00:18:00.470 --> 00:18:03.069 complex and authentic enough to secure the ultimate 00:18:03.069 --> 00:18:05.950 critical respect from your industry peers? It 00:18:05.950 --> 00:18:08.430 is the eternal tension between mass market consumption 00:18:08.430 --> 00:18:11.819 and uncompromising artistic integrity. We will 00:18:11.819 --> 00:18:13.619 leave you to ponder how that trade -off plays 00:18:13.619 --> 00:18:16.059 out in your own pursuits. Thank you for joining 00:18:16.059 --> 00:18:18.579 us as we unpack the data, the paradoxes, and 00:18:18.579 --> 00:18:20.480 the hidden narratives inside this piece of music 00:18:20.480 --> 00:18:22.640 history. We look forward to exploring the next 00:18:22.640 --> 00:18:23.640 deep dive with you soon.