WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.960 Welcome to the deep dive. I am I'm so glad you 00:00:03.960 --> 00:00:05.900 could join us today because we have a really 00:00:05.900 --> 00:00:08.580 unique mission for this exploration. Usually 00:00:08.580 --> 00:00:10.699 when you and I sit down to look at our sources, 00:00:10.759 --> 00:00:13.300 we're examining a pretty traditional piece of 00:00:13.300 --> 00:00:15.980 media, you know, a long form article, maybe a 00:00:15.980 --> 00:00:18.460 scientific paper or a published book. Right. 00:00:18.559 --> 00:00:20.679 Something with a clear author and a standard 00:00:20.679 --> 00:00:23.920 publication history. Exactly. But today we're 00:00:23.920 --> 00:00:26.390 doing something entirely different. We are looking 00:00:26.390 --> 00:00:29.989 at a musical artifact. Specifically, we're examining 00:00:29.989 --> 00:00:32.829 the Wikipedia page for a Tom Waits live album. 00:00:32.969 --> 00:00:35.210 It's called Romeo Bleeding, live from Austin. 00:00:35.760 --> 00:00:38.280 And it really is a fascinating document to analyze. 00:00:38.960 --> 00:00:41.060 We aren't just looking at the music today. We're 00:00:41.060 --> 00:00:42.719 looking at the paper trail of this album, the 00:00:42.719 --> 00:00:45.100 track list, the typos, the weird release dates, 00:00:45.159 --> 00:00:47.579 essentially, the anatomy of a live musical performance. 00:00:47.719 --> 00:00:50.299 Yeah. Our mission for this deep dive is to dissect 00:00:50.299 --> 00:00:53.520 all these raw facts to figure out exactly what 00:00:53.520 --> 00:00:55.439 makes a live album so captivating, especially 00:00:55.439 --> 00:00:59.659 when it carries a very unique, somewhat controversial 00:00:59.659 --> 00:01:02.079 label attached to it. OK, let's unpack this. 00:01:02.460 --> 00:01:04.739 What we have here, according to the source material, 00:01:04.980 --> 00:01:08.680 is a 52 minute and three second blues rock recording. 00:01:09.219 --> 00:01:12.879 And the Wikipedia page frames it as this incredibly 00:01:12.879 --> 00:01:16.459 specific time capsule. It's a snapshot of a single 00:01:16.459 --> 00:01:19.099 night of music. But the timeline of how it got 00:01:19.099 --> 00:01:21.719 from that night on a stage in Texas to our ears 00:01:21.719 --> 00:01:24.859 is full of anomalies. Let's start with the basic 00:01:24.859 --> 00:01:27.019 facts, because the math alone is enough to make 00:01:27.019 --> 00:01:29.280 you do a double take. It really is. Right. So 00:01:29.280 --> 00:01:32.290 this album was released. in the year 2009. It 00:01:32.290 --> 00:01:34.969 was put out by two labels listed here, Immortal 00:01:34.969 --> 00:01:38.030 and IMC Music LTD, but the actual performance. 00:01:38.250 --> 00:01:41.370 That was recorded on December 5th, 1978 in Austin, 00:01:41.469 --> 00:01:44.900 Texas. That is a 31 year gap between the night 00:01:44.900 --> 00:01:46.920 the music was played and the year it was officially 00:01:46.920 --> 00:01:49.200 packaged and sold by these labels. I mean, that 00:01:49.200 --> 00:01:51.359 isn't just a delay. That is an entire generation 00:01:51.359 --> 00:01:54.400 of musical history passing by while this recording 00:01:54.400 --> 00:01:56.859 just sat somewhere in a vault. Exactly. And when 00:01:56.859 --> 00:01:59.180 you look at where this sits in the official discography 00:01:59.180 --> 00:02:02.040 context, it is incredibly awkward. In terms of 00:02:02.040 --> 00:02:04.700 release dates, this 2009 album sits right next 00:02:04.700 --> 00:02:07.280 to another 2009 live album called Glitter and 00:02:07.280 --> 00:02:10.370 Doom Live. Right. But chronologically. If you 00:02:10.370 --> 00:02:12.949 look at the catalog before Romeo Bleeding, The 00:02:12.949 --> 00:02:16.389 last listed live album is Big Time from way back 00:02:16.389 --> 00:02:19.129 in 1988. Wow. So you have a product released 00:02:19.129 --> 00:02:22.009 in 2009 sitting right beside another 2009 release, 00:02:22.189 --> 00:02:25.509 but it's capturing a sonic atmosphere from 1978. 00:02:25.949 --> 00:02:28.610 It's basically time travel through cataloging. 00:02:28.629 --> 00:02:31.169 It is. But I think what's fascinating here is 00:02:31.169 --> 00:02:35.110 a single very brief sentence sitting right in 00:02:35.110 --> 00:02:37.069 the introductory paragraph of the source text. 00:02:37.150 --> 00:02:39.370 And it simply says, quote, this album is not 00:02:39.370 --> 00:02:41.939 approved by the artist. Wait, really? It just 00:02:41.939 --> 00:02:44.240 says that plain as day? Plain as day. How does 00:02:44.240 --> 00:02:46.879 an album get a full commercial release with actual 00:02:46.879 --> 00:02:50.000 labels if the artist didn't approve it? It sounds 00:02:50.000 --> 00:02:52.400 like buying a bootleg DVD out of the trunk of 00:02:52.400 --> 00:02:54.400 someone's car, but somehow it has an official 00:02:54.400 --> 00:02:57.060 barcode on it. That is a great comparison, because 00:02:57.060 --> 00:02:59.199 it essentially turns this album into a rogue 00:02:59.199 --> 00:03:01.840 historical document. Think about what that means 00:03:01.840 --> 00:03:04.349 for you as a listener. You're looking at a commercial 00:03:04.349 --> 00:03:06.129 release complete with a tracked out set list 00:03:06.129 --> 00:03:09.069 and an official Wikipedia entry that exists completely 00:03:09.069 --> 00:03:11.490 outside of the artist's sanctioned catalog. Wow. 00:03:11.689 --> 00:03:14.330 It wasn't curated by the person who created the 00:03:14.330 --> 00:03:16.370 music. He didn't give it his blessing. It was 00:03:16.370 --> 00:03:19.590 captured in 1978, held on to for three decades, 00:03:19.650 --> 00:03:22.550 and then suddenly released into the wild by a 00:03:22.550 --> 00:03:26.310 mortal and IMC music LTD. It completely changes 00:03:26.310 --> 00:03:29.229 the context of how we view these 52 minutes of 00:03:29.229 --> 00:03:31.750 music. We aren't looking at a carefully curated. 00:03:32.250 --> 00:03:35.310 museum exhibit you know we're looking at unedited 00:03:35.310 --> 00:03:38.490 evidence of a night in austin that makes it feel 00:03:38.490 --> 00:03:40.969 a lot more raw which actually brings us to the 00:03:40.969 --> 00:03:43.370 structure of the concert itself Looking at the 00:03:43.370 --> 00:03:45.490 track list, this is clearly not your standard 00:03:45.490 --> 00:03:47.349 collection of three -minute radio hits played 00:03:47.349 --> 00:03:49.650 exactly as they sound on a studio record. Not 00:03:49.650 --> 00:03:52.050 at all. The album is largely composed of sprawling 00:03:52.050 --> 00:03:54.610 medleys. And just to clarify for everyone listening, 00:03:54.830 --> 00:03:56.849 when we say medley here, we aren't talking about 00:03:56.849 --> 00:03:59.909 a modern DJ mashup where someone digitally mixes 00:03:59.909 --> 00:04:01.770 two completely different tracks together on a 00:04:01.770 --> 00:04:04.310 laptop. We're talking about a live band physically 00:04:04.310 --> 00:04:07.349 transitioning from one song into another, blurring 00:04:07.349 --> 00:04:09.449 the lines between them in real time. Right. It's 00:04:09.449 --> 00:04:12.150 a continuous, unbroken performance of multiple... 00:04:12.169 --> 00:04:14.189 multiple pieces of music. Here's where it gets 00:04:14.189 --> 00:04:16.370 really interesting. I had to read track one twice 00:04:16.370 --> 00:04:19.250 when I looked at our notes. The show opens by 00:04:19.250 --> 00:04:21.709 pairing the classic American Standard Summertime, 00:04:22.009 --> 00:04:24.730 which, as our source notes, was written by George 00:04:24.730 --> 00:04:27.930 Gershwin, Ira Gershwin, and Bose Hayward, with 00:04:27.930 --> 00:04:30.889 a Tom Waits original called Burma Shave. And 00:04:30.889 --> 00:04:34.529 the runtime is just over 11 minutes. Yeah. 11 00:04:34.529 --> 00:04:37.009 minutes and 16 seconds just for the opening track. 00:04:37.129 --> 00:04:39.389 It is a massive commitment to ask of an audience 00:04:39.389 --> 00:04:42.139 right out of the gate. Doesn't a band risk completely 00:04:42.139 --> 00:04:44.759 losing the crowd by doing that? I've been to 00:04:44.759 --> 00:04:47.420 shows where if the first song isn't a fast, punchy 00:04:47.420 --> 00:04:50.339 hit, half the audience goes to the bar. Opening 00:04:50.339 --> 00:04:52.779 a set with an 11 -minute medley feels incredibly 00:04:52.779 --> 00:04:55.420 risky. It is a huge risk. Yeah. But it shows 00:04:55.420 --> 00:04:57.879 an immense amount of artistic confidence. The 00:04:57.879 --> 00:05:00.519 best analogy is opening a film with a 10 -minute 00:05:00.519 --> 00:05:03.399 slow panning tracking shot before a single character 00:05:03.399 --> 00:05:06.079 speaks. Oh, I like that. It sets a very deliberate 00:05:06.079 --> 00:05:08.600 slow burn pace. It tells the audience in that 00:05:08.600 --> 00:05:11.529 room, settle in. We aren't rushing this. You 00:05:11.529 --> 00:05:13.350 are on my time now. Okay, I can see that. You're 00:05:13.350 --> 00:05:15.709 forcing the audience to adjust to your frequency 00:05:15.709 --> 00:05:18.350 rather than pandering to theirs. Exactly. They 00:05:18.350 --> 00:05:21.550 don't let up. We move right into track two, which 00:05:21.550 --> 00:05:23.629 pushes seven and a half minutes, specifically 00:05:23.629 --> 00:05:27.189 seven minutes and 28 seconds. Here we see another 00:05:27.189 --> 00:05:29.660 complex medley. We have two original tracks, 00:05:29.740 --> 00:05:32.720 Sacking Back in Town, and I Wish I Was in New 00:05:32.720 --> 00:05:35.139 Orleans, woven together with a traditional song 00:05:35.139 --> 00:05:38.060 called Ink in a Rain. So he's taking a traditional 00:05:38.060 --> 00:05:40.399 folk or blues song and just dropping it right 00:05:40.399 --> 00:05:43.199 into the middle of his own modern material. Precisely. 00:05:43.240 --> 00:05:45.360 Okay. And this is a foundational practice in 00:05:45.360 --> 00:05:48.180 the genre. The album is classified as blues rock. 00:05:49.040 --> 00:05:51.180 If you aren't familiar with how that genre operates, 00:05:51.420 --> 00:05:54.639 part of the DNA of blues rock is its direct lineage 00:05:54.639 --> 00:05:57.220 to traditional American music. Right. It's a 00:05:57.220 --> 00:06:00.300 genre built on inheritance. By weaving a traditional 00:06:00.300 --> 00:06:03.000 song like Ink It or Rain directly into I Wish 00:06:03.000 --> 00:06:05.620 I Was in New Orleans, the artist is anchoring 00:06:05.620 --> 00:06:07.920 his original work in that deep historical tradition. 00:06:08.139 --> 00:06:10.259 He's demonstrating to the Austin crowd that his 00:06:10.259 --> 00:06:12.879 modern stories are cut from the exact same cloth 00:06:12.879 --> 00:06:15.180 as the traditional songs that built the genre 00:06:15.180 --> 00:06:16.779 in the first place. He's showing his homework. 00:06:17.199 --> 00:06:19.439 Bridging the past and the present in a single 00:06:19.439 --> 00:06:22.879 continuous breath on stage. Exactly. It's a way 00:06:22.879 --> 00:06:26.399 of claiming that musical heritage in real time. 00:06:26.579 --> 00:06:29.459 So after establishing that incredibly heavy traditional 00:06:29.459 --> 00:06:33.000 tone with two massive medleys, where do they 00:06:33.000 --> 00:06:36.180 go next? They pivot to track three, which is 00:06:36.180 --> 00:06:38.439 called A Sweet Little Bullet from a Pretty Blue 00:06:38.439 --> 00:06:40.980 Gun. Now, this is the first time on the album 00:06:40.980 --> 00:06:43.500 we see a track that isn't a medley. It's just 00:06:43.500 --> 00:06:46.000 a standalone song. Right. But the runtime is 00:06:46.000 --> 00:06:48.079 still pushing eight minutes, seven minutes and 00:06:48.079 --> 00:06:50.360 42 seconds, to be exact. Which is incredibly 00:06:50.360 --> 00:06:53.160 long for a single song. Standard radio edits 00:06:53.160 --> 00:06:55.180 usually hover right around the three minute mark. 00:06:55.560 --> 00:06:57.399 Yeah. So just looking at that runtime implies 00:06:57.399 --> 00:06:59.399 so much about what must be happening on that 00:06:59.399 --> 00:07:02.360 stage. A nearly eight minute standalone song 00:07:02.360 --> 00:07:06.000 implies extended live instrumentation. It means 00:07:06.000 --> 00:07:09.220 there are probably long improvised solos or maybe 00:07:09.220 --> 00:07:12.000 extended spoken word storytelling happening before 00:07:12.000 --> 00:07:14.899 or during the song. For sure. It tells you that 00:07:14.899 --> 00:07:16.879 the live version of this track is a completely 00:07:16.879 --> 00:07:19.360 different living, breathing beast compared to 00:07:19.360 --> 00:07:21.579 whatever the studio version might be. It creates 00:07:21.579 --> 00:07:25.100 a deeply immersive atmosphere. If you do the 00:07:25.100 --> 00:07:27.779 math, you are only three tracks into the album, 00:07:27.879 --> 00:07:30.199 and you are already 26 minutes into the performance. 00:07:30.779 --> 00:07:34.459 That is a heavy, substantial block of music built 00:07:34.459 --> 00:07:36.720 from only three listed track numbers. It is a 00:07:36.720 --> 00:07:39.660 marathon. Which brings us to the middle of the 00:07:39.660 --> 00:07:43.579 set list. Track four is On the Nickel, running 00:07:43.579 --> 00:07:46.189 just over six minutes. Six minutes and 10 seconds. 00:07:46.490 --> 00:07:48.709 This seems to act as a crucial bridge in the 00:07:48.709 --> 00:07:51.970 performance. It's another substantial heavy track 00:07:51.970 --> 00:07:54.209 that carries the weight of the first half of 00:07:54.209 --> 00:07:56.550 the show right into the core of the set. Because 00:07:56.550 --> 00:07:58.949 immediately after that, we hit track five, the 00:07:58.949 --> 00:08:01.089 title track, or well, almost the title track. 00:08:01.230 --> 00:08:02.910 Slight discrepancy there, yes. Track five is 00:08:02.910 --> 00:08:04.790 Romeo is Bleeding, coming in at four minutes 00:08:04.790 --> 00:08:07.310 and 59 seconds. But if you look at the album 00:08:07.310 --> 00:08:09.250 title itself, the label dropped the word is. 00:08:09.490 --> 00:08:11.589 The album is just called Romeo Bleeding, live 00:08:11.589 --> 00:08:13.930 from Austin. It's a small detail, but it speaks 00:08:13.930 --> 00:08:16.779 volumes. It really does. It goes right back to 00:08:16.779 --> 00:08:20.220 that bootleg DVD analogy. The labels packaging 00:08:20.220 --> 00:08:21.959 the album couldn't even get the title of the 00:08:21.959 --> 00:08:24.139 anchor track perfectly matched to the album cover. 00:08:24.319 --> 00:08:27.540 It just underscores the rogue, unauthorized nature 00:08:27.540 --> 00:08:30.779 of the release. It's a telltale sign of a product 00:08:30.779 --> 00:08:33.399 assembled by someone on the outside looking in. 00:08:33.799 --> 00:08:36.360 It lacks that final coat of polish you'd expect 00:08:36.360 --> 00:08:39.100 from an artist -approved release. But moving 00:08:39.100 --> 00:08:41.279 past the typos, I think if we connect this to 00:08:41.279 --> 00:08:43.639 the bigger picture of what a live performance 00:08:43.639 --> 00:08:46.840 can achieve, we have to look at track six. This 00:08:46.840 --> 00:08:49.519 is a masterclass in juxtaposition. Oh, without 00:08:49.519 --> 00:08:52.659 a doubt. Track six is nearly six minutes of wild 00:08:52.659 --> 00:08:55.139 thematic contrast, five minutes and 51 seconds 00:08:55.139 --> 00:08:57.500 to be exact. It is a medley that slams together 00:08:57.500 --> 00:09:00.000 two incredibly different concepts. It merges 00:09:00.000 --> 00:09:01.879 the traditional Christmas carol Silent Night, 00:09:02.019 --> 00:09:04.179 which our source notes was composed by Franz 00:09:04.179 --> 00:09:06.899 Gruber and Joseph Moore, with a deeply gritty 00:09:06.899 --> 00:09:09.539 original track titled Christmas Card from a Hooker 00:09:09.539 --> 00:09:11.919 in Minneapolis. Just saying those two titles 00:09:11.919 --> 00:09:15.159 in the same sentence feels strange. Why on earth 00:09:15.159 --> 00:09:18.000 would an artist pair one of the most serene, 00:09:18.000 --> 00:09:21.299 sacred, universally recognized pieces of 19th 00:09:21.299 --> 00:09:24.340 century choral music with a narrative song about 00:09:24.340 --> 00:09:26.820 a sex worker in the Midwest? Because it forces 00:09:26.820 --> 00:09:29.600 the listener to reconcile those two worlds. You 00:09:29.600 --> 00:09:32.139 take the pure, unglemmished imagery of Silent 00:09:32.139 --> 00:09:34.620 Night and you use it as the introduction to a 00:09:34.620 --> 00:09:38.639 song rooted in modern urban struggle. Smashing 00:09:38.639 --> 00:09:40.679 those two things together in a single six -minute 00:09:40.679 --> 00:09:43.299 performance creates a highly memorable tension. 00:09:43.580 --> 00:09:46.539 Yeah. It elevates the gritty original song by 00:09:46.539 --> 00:09:49.039 associating it with the sacred, and it grounds 00:09:49.039 --> 00:09:51.700 the sacred carol by dragging it into the reality 00:09:51.700 --> 00:09:55.059 of a cold Minneapolis street. It's a theatrical, 00:09:55.240 --> 00:09:58.120 dramatic choice that you really only find in 00:09:58.120 --> 00:10:00.480 live, unrestrained environments where an artist 00:10:00.480 --> 00:10:02.700 is willing to take a massive swing. That makes 00:10:02.700 --> 00:10:04.759 total sense. It's the kind of creative risk you 00:10:04.759 --> 00:10:06.360 take when you're feeding off the energy of a 00:10:06.360 --> 00:10:08.720 room, and you want to completely catch the audience 00:10:08.720 --> 00:10:11.200 off guard. And that theatricality carries right 00:10:11.200 --> 00:10:13.440 over into the final track we have on this document. 00:10:13.580 --> 00:10:15.789 It does. Track seven is The Closer, and it's 00:10:15.789 --> 00:10:17.970 another massive medley running eight minutes 00:10:17.970 --> 00:10:21.769 and 37 seconds. Here, he takes a Broadway standard, 00:10:22.129 --> 00:10:25.049 Hey Big Spender, written by Cy Coleman and Dorothy 00:10:25.049 --> 00:10:27.389 Fields, and sandwiches it right in the middle 00:10:27.389 --> 00:10:29.870 of his original song, Small Change, and its reprise. 00:10:30.149 --> 00:10:33.549 From sacred carols to Broadway show tunes, all 00:10:33.549 --> 00:10:36.330 filter through a gritty blues rock lens. Yes. 00:10:36.490 --> 00:10:39.350 He wraps up this Austin show by turning a famous 00:10:39.350 --> 00:10:41.750 Broadway number into part of his own universe. 00:10:42.009 --> 00:10:44.370 It shows a complete disregard. for genre boundaries. 00:10:44.909 --> 00:10:47.470 Broadway, traditional folk, Christmas carols, 00:10:47.590 --> 00:10:49.549 it's all just raw material for the live show. 00:10:49.710 --> 00:10:51.970 Absolutely. But looking at all these wild transitions, 00:10:52.129 --> 00:10:54.970 it raises a huge logistical question. Who is 00:10:54.970 --> 00:10:57.330 actually executing all of this? We're talking 00:10:57.330 --> 00:11:00.210 about complex, 11 -minute mashups and seamless 00:11:00.210 --> 00:11:02.870 transitions between drastically different genres 00:11:02.870 --> 00:11:04.669 of music. You can't just pull that off alone. 00:11:04.970 --> 00:11:06.830 Let's look at the personnel list from that December 00:11:06.830 --> 00:11:09.970 night in 1978. At the absolute center, acting 00:11:09.970 --> 00:11:12.429 as the architect for all this, is Tom Waits. 00:11:12.779 --> 00:11:15.440 Handling vocals and piano. Yeah. But to achieve 00:11:15.440 --> 00:11:18.200 that specific blues rock sound and to pull off 00:11:18.200 --> 00:11:20.340 those massive medleys without the train coming 00:11:20.340 --> 00:11:23.240 off the tracks, you need a very specific kind 00:11:23.240 --> 00:11:25.500 of backing band. Right. And looking at the list, 00:11:25.559 --> 00:11:27.759 it's a remarkably tight group. There are only 00:11:27.759 --> 00:11:30.679 four other musicians credited on the page. Let's 00:11:30.679 --> 00:11:33.039 break down how they build that sound. First, 00:11:33.139 --> 00:11:36.139 you have Herbert Hardesty. The Wikipedia page 00:11:36.139 --> 00:11:38.360 lists his contributions as saxophone, trumpet, 00:11:38.539 --> 00:11:40.960 and flugelhorn. Okay, quick pause for anyone 00:11:40.960 --> 00:11:43.279 who might not know, what exactly does a flugelhorn 00:11:43.279 --> 00:11:46.080 bring to the table here? Good question. A flugelhorn 00:11:46.080 --> 00:11:48.639 looks very similar to a trumpet, but it has a 00:11:48.639 --> 00:11:51.820 much wider conical bore. What that means for 00:11:51.820 --> 00:11:53.919 the listener is that it produces a much warmer, 00:11:54.059 --> 00:11:57.000 darker, almost melancholic tone compared to the 00:11:57.000 --> 00:12:00.159 bright, piercing sound of a trumpet. It is perfect 00:12:00.159 --> 00:12:02.820 for the moody, jazz -inflected blues textures 00:12:02.820 --> 00:12:06.460 of a Tom Waits set. And what's remarkable is 00:12:06.460 --> 00:12:09.750 that... Hardesty is essentially acting as a one 00:12:09.750 --> 00:12:12.970 -man horn section. To physically switch between 00:12:12.970 --> 00:12:15.850 three different wind and brass instruments over 00:12:15.850 --> 00:12:18.809 the course of these long, demanding medleys requires 00:12:18.809 --> 00:12:21.269 an incredible amount of versatility and stamina. 00:12:21.490 --> 00:12:23.929 A one -man horn section. That's incredible. And 00:12:23.929 --> 00:12:25.850 then beneath that, you have the rhythm section 00:12:25.850 --> 00:12:27.889 holding the whole massive structure together. 00:12:27.970 --> 00:12:31.110 We have Arthur Richardson on a guitar, John Tomasey 00:12:31.110 --> 00:12:33.429 on drums, and Greg Cohen on bass guitar. Those 00:12:33.429 --> 00:12:35.240 three are the engine room. I'm just trying to 00:12:35.240 --> 00:12:37.860 imagine being the bassist or the drummer in that 00:12:37.860 --> 00:12:40.659 scenario. You have to perfectly sync up with 00:12:40.659 --> 00:12:42.799 the other four individuals on stage to execute 00:12:42.799 --> 00:12:45.480 an 11 -minute opening medley that shifts from 00:12:45.480 --> 00:12:48.080 a Gershwin standard into a heavy original track. 00:12:48.279 --> 00:12:50.620 There's no stopping. There's no resetting to 00:12:50.620 --> 00:12:52.659 catch your breath. You have to maintain the groove 00:12:52.659 --> 00:12:55.440 while seamlessly transitioning from traditional 00:12:55.440 --> 00:12:58.299 folk songs to Broadway hits to sacred Christmas 00:12:58.299 --> 00:13:01.250 carols. It requires a level of musical telepathy 00:13:01.250 --> 00:13:03.730 among those five guys. It isn't just about knowing 00:13:03.730 --> 00:13:06.070 the chords. It's about reading the room, making 00:13:06.070 --> 00:13:08.850 eye contact, and understanding exactly when to 00:13:08.850 --> 00:13:11.649 push the tempo and when to pull it back. They 00:13:11.649 --> 00:13:14.169 are navigating complex, multi -part suites of 00:13:14.169 --> 00:13:17.590 music live on stage. It's a high -wire act without 00:13:17.590 --> 00:13:20.149 a net, driven by just five people in a room in 00:13:20.149 --> 00:13:22.370 Austin. So what does this all mean? Let's take 00:13:22.370 --> 00:13:23.990 a step back and look at the whole picture we've 00:13:23.990 --> 00:13:26.429 painted from this one encyclopedia page. We have 00:13:26.429 --> 00:13:29.970 explored a 52 -minute snapshot of a 1978 concert. 00:13:30.549 --> 00:13:33.129 It's driven by a five -piece band, and it is 00:13:33.129 --> 00:13:34.889 entirely built on these sprawling, ambitious 00:13:34.889 --> 00:13:37.509 medleys of Broadway hits, traditional carols, 00:13:37.629 --> 00:13:40.679 folk songs, and original blues rock. portrait 00:13:40.679 --> 00:13:43.419 of an artist at work on a stage. Exactly. And 00:13:43.419 --> 00:13:45.600 for you listening, this is why an artifact like 00:13:45.600 --> 00:13:48.299 this matters. It's a masterclass in synthesis. 00:13:48.580 --> 00:13:51.240 It shows how an artist can take wildly different 00:13:51.240 --> 00:13:53.639 influences from George Gershwin's Summertime 00:13:53.639 --> 00:13:57.399 Jazz to Franz Gruber's 19th Century Carols to 00:13:57.399 --> 00:13:59.899 Cy Coleman's Broadway Glitz and melt them all 00:13:59.899 --> 00:14:02.659 down into a single, cohesive, uncompromising 00:14:02.659 --> 00:14:05.960 live performance. It reminds us that great music 00:14:05.960 --> 00:14:08.759 doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's a conversation 00:14:08.759 --> 00:14:11.100 with everything that came before it. It truly 00:14:11.100 --> 00:14:14.200 is. But as we wrap up our analysis of this document, 00:14:14.399 --> 00:14:17.019 we cannot ignore the shadow hanging over it. 00:14:17.200 --> 00:14:19.799 We have to return to that crucial single sentence 00:14:19.799 --> 00:14:22.519 from the source. This album is not approved by 00:14:22.519 --> 00:14:24.639 the artist. This raises an important question, 00:14:24.700 --> 00:14:26.000 one that I want to leave you to think about. 00:14:26.159 --> 00:14:28.200 I have to admit, talking about how brilliant 00:14:28.200 --> 00:14:29.899 this performance is makes me feel a little bit 00:14:29.899 --> 00:14:31.820 conflicted knowing it was pushed out by these 00:14:31.820 --> 00:14:34.259 labels 31 years later without the artist's approval. 00:14:34.620 --> 00:14:37.679 It is a fascinating dilemma. If an album is commercially 00:14:37.679 --> 00:14:40.600 released, Packaged, pressed, and sold by labels 00:14:40.600 --> 00:14:45.080 like Immortal and IMC Music LTD in 2009. But 00:14:45.080 --> 00:14:47.440 it explicitly lacks the approval of the artist 00:14:47.440 --> 00:14:50.779 who bled on that stage back in 1978. How should 00:14:50.779 --> 00:14:53.879 we, as listeners, value it? Part of me feels 00:14:53.879 --> 00:14:56.279 like it's a stolen moment in time. Like it's 00:14:56.279 --> 00:14:58.080 a piece of art that was taken without permission, 00:14:58.220 --> 00:14:59.820 and maybe it's something we should view with 00:14:59.820 --> 00:15:03.100 a bit of skepticism as consumers. That is entirely 00:15:03.100 --> 00:15:05.769 valid. But to play devil's advocate... Is it 00:15:05.769 --> 00:15:08.370 also a vital, undeniable piece of musical history? 00:15:08.730 --> 00:15:11.309 It captures a brilliant night in Austin. Does 00:15:11.309 --> 00:15:13.809 that historical record deserve to be heard, studied, 00:15:13.950 --> 00:15:16.450 and appreciated by fans, regardless of whether 00:15:16.450 --> 00:15:18.450 the creator gave it his blessing over three decades 00:15:18.450 --> 00:15:20.769 later? It's the ultimate clash between protecting 00:15:20.769 --> 00:15:22.750 an artist's catalog and preserving historical 00:15:22.750 --> 00:15:25.669 brilliance for the public. Exactly. It is a complex 00:15:25.669 --> 00:15:28.230 space to navigate as a consumer of art, and it's 00:15:28.230 --> 00:15:30.169 something every listener has to ponder for themselves 00:15:30.169 --> 00:15:33.090 when they encounter a rogue, unapproved masterpiece 00:15:33.090 --> 00:15:35.820 like this one. That is a fascinating thought 00:15:35.820 --> 00:15:38.000 to leave on. A brilliant performance trapped 00:15:38.000 --> 00:15:40.539 in a complicated legacy. Thank you for joining 00:15:40.539 --> 00:15:43.399 us as we unpack the paper trail of Romeo Bleeding. 00:15:43.419 --> 00:15:45.320 Keep questioning what you listen to and we'll 00:15:45.320 --> 00:15:46.639 catch you on the next deep dive.