WEBVTT 00:00:00.579 --> 00:00:04.240 Have you ever made a mistake at work that you 00:00:04.240 --> 00:00:06.000 were just absolutely certain was going to completely 00:00:06.000 --> 00:00:09.619 derail your career? You know the exact feeling 00:00:09.619 --> 00:00:11.119 we're talking about, right? You're sitting there. 00:00:11.339 --> 00:00:14.000 Maybe you send this highly sensitive email to 00:00:14.000 --> 00:00:16.359 the totally wrong client. Or you just completely 00:00:16.359 --> 00:00:19.219 botch a major presentation. Exactly. Or you deliver 00:00:19.219 --> 00:00:21.300 a project and it just falls completely flat. 00:00:21.339 --> 00:00:23.600 Right. And in that exact moment, your stomach 00:00:23.600 --> 00:00:26.000 just drops. You get that cold sweat. Yeah. And 00:00:26.000 --> 00:00:29.210 you think, well, that's it. I'm done. they are 00:00:29.210 --> 00:00:32.049 finally going to figure out, I have no idea what 00:00:32.049 --> 00:00:36.170 I'm doing and my reputation is ruined. It's a 00:00:36.170 --> 00:00:39.469 universally relatable anxiety. I mean, we really 00:00:39.469 --> 00:00:41.729 tend to view our professional lives. Like their 00:00:41.729 --> 00:00:45.850 glass. Yes. These incredibly fragile constructs. 00:00:45.909 --> 00:00:49.350 We convince ourselves that one bad day or, you 00:00:49.350 --> 00:00:53.189 know, one subpar piece of output is going to 00:00:53.189 --> 00:00:55.409 permanently define our trajectory. But it doesn't 00:00:55.409 --> 00:00:57.619 usually happen that way, does it? That's the 00:00:57.619 --> 00:00:59.960 consistently compelling part. When you actually 00:00:59.960 --> 00:01:02.619 examine the architecture of long, successful 00:01:02.619 --> 00:01:06.680 careers across almost any field, that is rarely 00:01:06.680 --> 00:01:09.560 how it plays out. The defining question isn't 00:01:09.560 --> 00:01:11.340 whether you're eventually going to produce a 00:01:11.340 --> 00:01:13.700 dud. Right, because you will. Everyone does. 00:01:13.780 --> 00:01:17.140 It's how your larger body of work absorbs and 00:01:17.140 --> 00:01:20.040 neutralizes that dud. Exactly. Which brings us 00:01:20.040 --> 00:01:23.120 perfectly to today's deep dive, because we have 00:01:23.290 --> 00:01:26.010 Honestly, the ultimate historical case study 00:01:26.010 --> 00:01:28.629 of exactly this phenomenon. It's a fascinating 00:01:28.629 --> 00:01:30.870 one. And we're pulling all of our insights today 00:01:30.870 --> 00:01:34.890 from a single, highly specific source. We are 00:01:34.890 --> 00:01:38.930 looking at a Wikipedia article about a 1957 pop 00:01:38.930 --> 00:01:41.370 album. Simply titled Pat. Yeah, Pat. Released 00:01:41.370 --> 00:01:43.870 on Dot Records by Pat Boone. On the surface, 00:01:44.030 --> 00:01:46.109 I mean, it really just reads like a standard, 00:01:46.450 --> 00:01:49.269 brief encyclopedia entry about a mid -century 00:01:49.269 --> 00:01:51.950 pop record. Right. But if you look closer at 00:01:51.950 --> 00:01:53.549 the data points... Which is what we're here to 00:01:53.549 --> 00:01:55.569 do. Exactly. You look at the chronology, the 00:01:55.569 --> 00:01:58.469 critical reception, the track details, and crucially, 00:01:58.750 --> 00:02:00.790 that massive discography listed at the end of 00:02:00.790 --> 00:02:03.109 the article. It completely transforms. It goes 00:02:03.109 --> 00:02:05.530 from a basic summary into a masterclass in career 00:02:05.530 --> 00:02:08.250 survival. Our mission today is to explore exactly 00:02:08.250 --> 00:02:11.569 how early momentum can insulate a career against 00:02:11.569 --> 00:02:15.180 a critical misstep. So to really understand how 00:02:15.180 --> 00:02:18.240 dangerous this particular flop was, we have to 00:02:18.240 --> 00:02:20.360 look at exactly when it happened in his career. 00:02:20.520 --> 00:02:24.080 The timing is everything. So it's 1957. Pat Boone 00:02:24.080 --> 00:02:27.080 is releasing this studio album, Pat. And the 00:02:27.080 --> 00:02:29.300 chronology in the source shows this is his third 00:02:29.300 --> 00:02:31.259 studio album. Sandwiched right in the middle. 00:02:31.419 --> 00:02:34.240 Yeah, it's directly between his 1956 album, Howdy, 00:02:34.800 --> 00:02:36.900 and another album he released in that exact same 00:02:36.900 --> 00:02:40.240 year, 1957. Called Hymns We Love. Right. Two 00:02:40.240 --> 00:02:42.419 full albums in a single calendar year. Which, 00:02:42.539 --> 00:02:44.960 by the way, implies a really grueling production 00:02:44.960 --> 00:02:47.599 pace. Definitely. But that specific placement. 00:02:48.139 --> 00:02:50.409 Album number three. Yeah. Why is that so critical? 00:02:50.629 --> 00:02:53.169 Well, releasing your third studio album is traditionally 00:02:53.169 --> 00:02:56.189 a highly vulnerable position for an artist. Because 00:02:56.189 --> 00:02:58.469 you're not a legacy act yet. Exactly. You're 00:02:58.469 --> 00:03:00.710 not established enough to be bulletproof. You've 00:03:00.710 --> 00:03:03.129 had your debut. You've hopefully survived the 00:03:03.129 --> 00:03:06.250 dreaded sophomore slum. And now everyone is watching. 00:03:06.530 --> 00:03:09.310 The industry, the critics, the public, they are 00:03:09.310 --> 00:03:11.409 all looking at album number three to determine 00:03:11.409 --> 00:03:14.270 if you are a permanent fixture or just a passing 00:03:14.270 --> 00:03:16.349 fad. And according to the critics, this third 00:03:16.349 --> 00:03:20.080 album, Pat, was a major misstep. It did not land 00:03:20.080 --> 00:03:24.139 well. No. The source includes this retrospective 00:03:24.139 --> 00:03:27.139 review from AllMusic, a critic named Arthur Rowe. 00:03:27.219 --> 00:03:29.780 Right. And he gave the album a pretty dismal 00:03:29.780 --> 00:03:33.300 2 .5 out of 5 stars. No. He flat out calls it 00:03:33.300 --> 00:03:36.060 a bad album. He doesn't sugarcoat it. Not at 00:03:36.060 --> 00:03:38.500 all. And he goes even further. He writes that 00:03:38.500 --> 00:03:41.419 this album might have gone some distance toward 00:03:41.419 --> 00:03:44.939 derailing his career early on. Gone some distance 00:03:44.939 --> 00:03:48.219 toward derailing. That's a very specific phrase. 00:03:48.340 --> 00:03:50.889 It is. What do you make of that? It implies a 00:03:50.889 --> 00:03:53.490 significant wobble. You know, the train didn't 00:03:53.490 --> 00:03:55.930 completely come off the tracks, but the wheels 00:03:55.930 --> 00:03:58.610 definitely lifted off the rails for a terrifying 00:03:58.610 --> 00:04:01.689 second. Yeah. Releasing a critically panned 2 00:04:01.689 --> 00:04:03.629 .5 -star album when you're still establishing 00:04:03.629 --> 00:04:06.210 your footing. In a highly competitive 1950s pop 00:04:06.210 --> 00:04:09.409 market, no less. Oh, it's incredibly risky. The 00:04:09.409 --> 00:04:11.469 public's attention span is short. Always has 00:04:11.469 --> 00:04:13.870 been. And there's this endless supply of younger, 00:04:14.229 --> 00:04:16.509 hungrier artists just waiting to take your spot 00:04:16.509 --> 00:04:19.199 on the charts. But the train didn't derail. No, 00:04:19.240 --> 00:04:21.860 the wheels hit the tracks again. And Rowe's review 00:04:21.860 --> 00:04:24.600 actually tells us why he thinks Boone survived 00:04:24.600 --> 00:04:28.040 it. He does. He writes that Boone was saved because 00:04:28.040 --> 00:04:31.680 he had gotten off to a fast start. Right. Specifically, 00:04:32.220 --> 00:04:34.639 Rowe notes that Boone had previously delivered 00:04:34.639 --> 00:04:38.680 good, energy -charged rock and roll. And an excellent 00:04:38.680 --> 00:04:41.959 album of standards. Yes. This introduces a really 00:04:41.959 --> 00:04:44.180 fascinating dynamic. Rowe isn't just saying Boone 00:04:44.180 --> 00:04:46.720 survived because people liked him. No, it's more 00:04:46.720 --> 00:04:48.889 strategic than that. He's saying Boone survived 00:04:48.889 --> 00:04:51.769 because he had diversified his portfolio early 00:04:51.769 --> 00:04:54.089 on. He didn't just have one hit in one style. 00:04:54.410 --> 00:04:56.949 Exactly. He had demonstrated competence and high 00:04:56.949 --> 00:04:59.529 energy rock and roll, and he had proven he could 00:04:59.529 --> 00:05:01.730 handle traditional standards. He established 00:05:01.730 --> 00:05:05.129 a really broad, sturdy foundation. It's essentially 00:05:05.129 --> 00:05:08.449 the classic corporate get out of jail free card. 00:05:08.750 --> 00:05:11.689 Oh, how so? Think about it. If you've crushed 00:05:11.689 --> 00:05:14.389 your KPIs for a solid year and you've proven 00:05:14.389 --> 00:05:16.810 you can handle multiple different types of accounts. 00:05:16.990 --> 00:05:19.930 Your boss is likely to overlook one blown presentation. 00:05:20.509 --> 00:05:23.009 Precisely. Boone had built up that same equity, 00:05:23.250 --> 00:05:25.430 but with the record buying public. That career 00:05:25.430 --> 00:05:28.709 equity is huge. Because of those early deposits 00:05:28.709 --> 00:05:31.949 into the Bank of Public Opinion, a 2 .5 star 00:05:31.949 --> 00:05:35.170 album didn't signal a fundamental lack of talent. 00:05:35.230 --> 00:05:37.470 Right, it wasn't a death sentence. It was interpreted 00:05:37.470 --> 00:05:41.389 merely as a misfire on a specific project. The 00:05:41.389 --> 00:05:43.529 failure couldn't permanently stick to him because 00:05:43.529 --> 00:05:46.310 his prior successes acted as a shock absorber. 00:05:46.610 --> 00:05:49.970 So what does a 1957 misfire actually look like? 00:05:50.089 --> 00:05:52.839 Well, let's dissect the track list. because the 00:05:52.839 --> 00:05:54.899 source gives us the full A -side and B -side 00:05:54.899 --> 00:05:57.600 breakdown. And it is revealing. Oh, the constraints 00:05:57.600 --> 00:06:00.920 and eccentricities of 1950s pop music are on 00:06:00.920 --> 00:06:03.860 full display here. The stylistic dissonance between 00:06:03.860 --> 00:06:07.139 these song titles is just striking. It's an incredibly 00:06:07.139 --> 00:06:09.519 eclectic mix. Which might be a polite way of 00:06:09.519 --> 00:06:12.139 saying it completely lacks cohesion. Fair point. 00:06:12.250 --> 00:06:14.829 Just listen to the sequence on side one. We open 00:06:14.829 --> 00:06:17.430 with flip, flop, and fly, followed by Pledging 00:06:17.430 --> 00:06:20.069 My Love, Money Honey, Tomorrow Night, and then... 00:06:20.069 --> 00:06:22.490 This is the one that really gets me. Ain't nobody 00:06:22.490 --> 00:06:25.350 here but us chickens. Amazing. Right. And he 00:06:25.350 --> 00:06:27.870 wraps up the side with Shake A Hand. Then you 00:06:27.870 --> 00:06:29.930 flip the record over to side two, and you get 00:06:29.930 --> 00:06:33.050 Honey Hush, Please Send Me Someone To Love, I'm 00:06:33.050 --> 00:06:35.410 In Love Again, Rock Around The Clock, Shotgun 00:06:35.410 --> 00:06:39.519 Boogie, and 5, 10, 15 Hours. When you hear that 00:06:39.519 --> 00:06:42.959 list read aloud in sequence, what is your immediate 00:06:42.959 --> 00:06:45.379 impression of the album's identity? Honestly, 00:06:45.600 --> 00:06:48.060 it feels completely scattershot. You have these 00:06:48.060 --> 00:06:51.379 bizarre novelty titles about chickens sitting 00:06:51.379 --> 00:06:54.129 right next to earnest romantic pledges. which 00:06:54.129 --> 00:06:56.850 are right next to rock anthems and shotgun boogies. 00:06:57.009 --> 00:06:59.329 It feels way less like an album and more like 00:06:59.329 --> 00:07:01.829 a strategy of just throwing everything at the 00:07:01.829 --> 00:07:03.990 wall to see what sticks. And that reflects the 00:07:03.990 --> 00:07:05.769 reality of the pop music machine at the time. 00:07:06.089 --> 00:07:09.230 The concept of the album as a cohesive thematic 00:07:09.230 --> 00:07:11.699 artistic statement. Like a concept album? Yeah, 00:07:11.720 --> 00:07:14.620 the way we think of albums post -1960s, that 00:07:14.620 --> 00:07:17.160 wasn't fully established yet. Not at all. For 00:07:17.160 --> 00:07:20.480 pop vocalists in 1957, an album was often just 00:07:20.480 --> 00:07:23.759 a physical container. Just a vessel to hold discreet, 00:07:23.920 --> 00:07:26.720 unrelated tracks. But look closer at the source 00:07:26.720 --> 00:07:29.519 data regarding the songwriters. Right, the Wikipedia 00:07:29.519 --> 00:07:32.420 article specifically credits writers for several 00:07:32.420 --> 00:07:34.779 tracks, particularly on side one. Who do we have? 00:07:35.120 --> 00:07:37.600 We have Don Roby and Ferdinand Washington listed 00:07:37.600 --> 00:07:40.279 for Pledging My Love, Jesse Sto - wrote, Money 00:07:40.279 --> 00:07:43.699 Honey. Sam Coslow and Will Gross wrote, Tomorrow 00:07:43.699 --> 00:07:47.160 Night. Joe Morris wrote, Shake a Hand. What does 00:07:47.160 --> 00:07:50.540 that tell you? Well, it makes it very clear that 00:07:50.540 --> 00:07:52.899 Pat Boone wasn't writing this material. And that 00:07:52.899 --> 00:07:55.259 detail is crucial to understanding the industry 00:07:55.259 --> 00:07:58.420 structure back then. Pop stars of this era relied 00:07:58.420 --> 00:08:00.939 heavily on a stable of professional songwriters. 00:08:01.000 --> 00:08:03.579 Usually sourced by the label, right? Or A &R 00:08:03.579 --> 00:08:05.920 representatives. Yeah. Their job was to just 00:08:05.920 --> 00:08:08.660 churn out material. So the artist was The Voice. 00:08:08.800 --> 00:08:11.660 the face and the brand. But the raw material 00:08:11.660 --> 00:08:14.319 was sourced from this complex industrial network 00:08:14.319 --> 00:08:16.339 of professional writers. But wait, if we look 00:08:16.339 --> 00:08:18.959 at that critically, if Boone didn't write the 00:08:18.959 --> 00:08:22.079 songs, and side one is penned by guys like Jesse 00:08:22.079 --> 00:08:24.639 Stone and Joe Morris. Shouldn't Arthur Rose critique 00:08:24.639 --> 00:08:28.500 be aimed at the labels A and R team? Exactly. 00:08:28.839 --> 00:08:31.319 If the songs are bad, why is Boone's career the 00:08:31.319 --> 00:08:33.970 one on the line for a 2 .5 star review? That 00:08:33.970 --> 00:08:36.789 is the double -edged sword of being a pop vocalist 00:08:36.789 --> 00:08:39.149 in that era. You don't have to write the hits, 00:08:39.389 --> 00:08:41.750 but you still have to wear the failures. When 00:08:41.750 --> 00:08:44.730 a critic calls it a bad album, part of that critique 00:08:44.730 --> 00:08:48.850 is about song selection. Curation. Curation and 00:08:48.850 --> 00:08:51.549 interpretation. The artist is essentially at 00:08:51.549 --> 00:08:53.690 the mercy of the material they're handed. But 00:08:53.690 --> 00:08:56.649 the public only sees the name. on the album cover. 00:08:56.750 --> 00:08:58.990 Which makes that career equity we talked about 00:08:58.990 --> 00:09:01.269 even more vital. Right, because if your product 00:09:01.269 --> 00:09:04.149 relies on an external supply chain of songwriters 00:09:04.149 --> 00:09:06.929 and you get handed a bad batch of songs, you 00:09:06.929 --> 00:09:09.429 need the public to forgive the final product. 00:09:09.629 --> 00:09:11.929 There is another detail hidden in this track 00:09:11.929 --> 00:09:14.649 list that fundamentally changes how you view 00:09:14.649 --> 00:09:16.429 that early review. This is one of my favorite 00:09:16.429 --> 00:09:20.049 parts. I want you, listening right now, to think 00:09:20.049 --> 00:09:23.169 about the length of your favorite song. In the 00:09:23.169 --> 00:09:26.259 modern era, It's probably three, maybe four minutes 00:09:26.259 --> 00:09:28.700 long. Yeah, at least. Let's look at the runtimes 00:09:28.700 --> 00:09:31.259 for every single track on the album pad. The 00:09:31.259 --> 00:09:34.639 pattern is highly specific. And very rigid. The 00:09:34.639 --> 00:09:36.940 longest track on the entire album is Tomorrow 00:09:36.940 --> 00:09:39.980 Night on side one. Guess how long it is. It clocks 00:09:39.980 --> 00:09:42.519 in at a mere two minutes and 45 seconds. That 00:09:42.519 --> 00:09:46.080 is the absolute epic of this record. 2 .45. And 00:09:46.080 --> 00:09:47.519 if we look at the other end of the spectrum. 00:09:47.580 --> 00:09:49.879 It gets even shorter. The shortest track is on 00:09:49.879 --> 00:09:54.279 side two. Track three. I'm in Love Again is exactly 00:09:54.279 --> 00:09:57.220 1 minute and 59 seconds long. He doesn't even 00:09:57.220 --> 00:09:59.379 cross the 2 minute mark. And the rest of the 00:09:59.379 --> 00:10:01.279 album is tightly clustered right around the 2 00:10:01.279 --> 00:10:04.019 minute and 10 second mark. Honey Hush is 210, 00:10:04.580 --> 00:10:07.279 Rock Around the Clock is 203. If we extrapolate 00:10:07.279 --> 00:10:10.559 on these rigid time constraints... We can clearly 00:10:10.559 --> 00:10:13.759 see the structural formula of 1950s pop music 00:10:13.759 --> 00:10:16.519 laid bare. It was a machine. A highly calibrated 00:10:16.519 --> 00:10:19.200 commercial product designed for a specific medium. 00:10:19.440 --> 00:10:22.899 Primarily AM radio and 45 RPM jukeboxes. The 00:10:22.899 --> 00:10:26.039 mandate was clear. Get in, deliver the primary 00:10:26.039 --> 00:10:28.059 hook, and get out in under two and a half minutes. 00:10:28.120 --> 00:10:30.480 But why so universally short? Was it really just 00:10:30.480 --> 00:10:32.620 a limitation of the physical vinyl? Physical 00:10:32.620 --> 00:10:34.539 limitations definitely played a role, but it 00:10:34.539 --> 00:10:36.779 was primarily a psychological and commercial 00:10:36.779 --> 00:10:40.659 calculation. It maximizes replayability. The 00:10:40.659 --> 00:10:43.720 entire goal of a pop track in this era was to 00:10:43.720 --> 00:10:45.700 be catchy enough that the listener immediately 00:10:45.700 --> 00:10:47.860 wants to drop another coin in the jukebox. Or 00:10:47.860 --> 00:10:50.399 go buy the single the second it ends. Exactly. 00:10:50.799 --> 00:10:53.220 By keeping it hovering around two minutes, you 00:10:53.220 --> 00:10:55.519 never overstay your welcome. You actually leave 00:10:55.519 --> 00:10:58.720 the audience slightly unsatisfied. Actively craving 00:10:58.720 --> 00:11:01.620 another spin. Yes. Which actually provides a 00:11:01.620 --> 00:11:04.179 massive defense mechanism against a bad review. 00:11:04.360 --> 00:11:06.799 It really does. Think about it. If an album is 00:11:06.799 --> 00:11:08.580 full of tracks that aren't that great, like a 00:11:08.580 --> 00:11:11.340 2 .5 -star album, the experience of listening 00:11:11.340 --> 00:11:14.340 to them is incredibly brief. Right. A poorly 00:11:14.340 --> 00:11:16.899 executed two -minute song is just a fleeting 00:11:16.899 --> 00:11:19.960 annoyance. You can forgive a bizarre two -minute 00:11:19.960 --> 00:11:23.000 novelty song about chickens. Way easier than 00:11:23.000 --> 00:11:25.399 you can forgive a sprawling, self -indulgent 00:11:25.399 --> 00:11:28.019 seven -minute bad song. The brevity literally 00:11:28.019 --> 00:11:30.519 minimizes the damage. The format itself has a 00:11:30.519 --> 00:11:32.620 built -in risk mitigation strategy. The pain 00:11:32.620 --> 00:11:34.799 is over quickly. And the listener is on to the 00:11:34.799 --> 00:11:37.360 next track before they have time to truly dwell 00:11:37.360 --> 00:11:39.919 on the misstep. So we've looked at the anatomy 00:11:39.919 --> 00:11:42.639 of this specific misstep. The vulnerability of 00:11:42.639 --> 00:11:44.879 the third album. The stylistic dissonance of 00:11:44.879 --> 00:11:47.740 the track list. The reliance on an external supply 00:11:47.740 --> 00:11:50.299 chain of writers. And those rapid -fire runtimes. 00:11:50.480 --> 00:11:54.100 But to really understand how Pat survived its 00:11:54.100 --> 00:11:57.159 2 .5 -star review, we have to look at the back 00:11:57.159 --> 00:11:59.480 half of this Wikipedia article. Because when 00:11:59.480 --> 00:12:02.220 you scroll down past the track list, the entire 00:12:02.220 --> 00:12:04.799 context of that review shifts. You're referring 00:12:04.799 --> 00:12:07.120 to the sheer scope of the discography section. 00:12:07.620 --> 00:12:10.179 The volume is just staggering. When you look 00:12:10.179 --> 00:12:13.899 past this one little 1957 album, you are confronted 00:12:13.899 --> 00:12:16.320 with a mountain of musical output. It goes on 00:12:16.320 --> 00:12:19.279 forever. The album pad wasn't a definitive statement. 00:12:19.519 --> 00:12:22.580 It was just a tiny drop in a massive decade -spanning 00:12:22.580 --> 00:12:25.100 ocean of releases. This is where we see the strategy 00:12:25.100 --> 00:12:27.740 of relentless output in action. Yeah. If you 00:12:27.740 --> 00:12:30.480 release one album and it gets 2 .5 stars, that 00:12:30.480 --> 00:12:32.799 defines your career. Right. But if you release 00:12:32.799 --> 00:12:35.620 dozens and dozens of albums over multiple decades, 00:12:35.879 --> 00:12:39.779 a 2 .5 -star album from 1957 loses its power 00:12:39.779 --> 00:12:42.539 to define you. It ceases to be a career derailer 00:12:42.539 --> 00:12:45.230 and simply becomes a statistical anomaly. And 00:12:45.230 --> 00:12:47.470 the variety in these later studio album titles 00:12:47.470 --> 00:12:50.490 is fascinating. It really is. We start with the 00:12:50.490 --> 00:12:53.590 early chronological stuff from the source, like 00:12:53.590 --> 00:12:57.529 Howdy and Hymns We Love. Standard 1950s fare. 00:12:58.169 --> 00:13:00.889 As you read further down the list, you see him 00:13:00.889 --> 00:13:02.870 rapidly pivoting to capture different markets. 00:13:03.090 --> 00:13:05.450 You have Pat Boone sings Irving Berlin right 00:13:05.450 --> 00:13:07.950 next to Stardust and White Christmas. He's covering 00:13:07.950 --> 00:13:11.190 his bases, anchoring himself to established American 00:13:11.190 --> 00:13:13.389 classics while still churning out contemporary 00:13:13.389 --> 00:13:16.190 pop. But then the titles start reflecting, shifting 00:13:16.190 --> 00:13:19.250 cultural trends in a way that creates some serious 00:13:19.250 --> 00:13:21.750 thematic whiplash. They get pretty wild. You 00:13:21.750 --> 00:13:24.110 get an album titled I Was Kaiser Bill's Batman. 00:13:24.230 --> 00:13:27.429 Yep. Then there's Timie Kangaroo Downsport. Amazing. 00:13:27.570 --> 00:13:30.090 He jumps into regional genres with the countryside 00:13:30.090 --> 00:13:33.529 of Pat Boone and Texas Woman. It suggests an 00:13:33.529 --> 00:13:35.730 artist who is not precious about his output. 00:13:35.870 --> 00:13:38.970 Not at all. He is willing to try anything, record 00:13:38.970 --> 00:13:41.649 anything, and pivot to whatever the market might 00:13:41.649 --> 00:13:45.049 respond to. And that willingness to pivot culminates 00:13:45.049 --> 00:13:47.309 in what has to be the most surprising title on 00:13:47.309 --> 00:13:49.309 this entire list. Oh, I know the one you're talking 00:13:49.309 --> 00:13:51.389 about. The heavy metal album. Yes. In a metal 00:13:51.389 --> 00:13:56.039 mood. No more Mr. Nice Guy. The contrast here 00:13:56.039 --> 00:13:58.639 is just striking. When you look at an artist 00:13:58.639 --> 00:14:01.259 who goes from singing a two -minute version of 00:14:01.259 --> 00:14:05.240 Flip Flop and Fly on a tightly constrained 1957 00:14:05.240 --> 00:14:07.879 pop record to eventually recording an album called 00:14:07.879 --> 00:14:10.220 In a Metal Mood, you are looking at a career 00:14:10.220 --> 00:14:13.259 built on absolute fearlessness regarding critical 00:14:13.259 --> 00:14:15.740 reception. He refused to be paralyzed by a bad 00:14:15.740 --> 00:14:18.200 review or by genre conventions. And it wasn't 00:14:18.200 --> 00:14:20.720 just the studio albums keeping the engine running. 00:14:20.860 --> 00:14:23.950 No. The source lists an enormous catalog of singles. 00:14:24.090 --> 00:14:27.049 And in the 1950s and 60s, singles were the true 00:14:27.049 --> 00:14:29.389 currency of the music industry. These are the 00:14:29.389 --> 00:14:31.570 individual tracks that kept his name on the radio 00:14:31.570 --> 00:14:34.409 and in the public consciousness, even if a specific 00:14:34.409 --> 00:14:37.409 album project like Pat didn't land with the critics. 00:14:38.009 --> 00:14:40.490 The volume of singles listed is a testament to 00:14:40.490 --> 00:14:43.429 that strategy. It is over 50 singles long. We 00:14:43.429 --> 00:14:45.929 are talking about massive, era -defining hits 00:14:45.929 --> 00:14:49.580 mixed with constant, steady output. T .D. Fruity, 00:14:49.620 --> 00:14:52.039 ain't that a shame at my front door? Crazy little 00:14:52.039 --> 00:14:55.980 mama. Friendly Persuasion, Love Letters in the 00:14:55.980 --> 00:15:00.620 Sand, Speedy Gonzales, White Christmas. Cuando, 00:15:00.679 --> 00:15:04.220 cuando, cuando, baby elephant walk. The list 00:15:04.220 --> 00:15:07.399 spans years and years of relentless production. 00:15:07.700 --> 00:15:10.340 If we connect this massive list of singles and 00:15:10.340 --> 00:15:12.779 eclectic albums back to Arthur Rowe's assertion. 00:15:12.860 --> 00:15:15.419 That the 1957 album Pat. could have derailed 00:15:15.419 --> 00:15:18.379 his career. Exactly. The discography proves that 00:15:18.379 --> 00:15:21.080 momentum is the ultimate defense against failure. 00:15:21.360 --> 00:15:24.299 When you produce this much volume across this 00:15:24.299 --> 00:15:27.279 many genres and eras, you make yourself undeniable 00:15:27.279 --> 00:15:29.620 through sheer persistence. You build so much 00:15:29.620 --> 00:15:31.940 career equity that the missteps don't define 00:15:31.940 --> 00:15:34.039 you. The act of production itself becomes the 00:15:34.039 --> 00:15:36.230 defining characteristic of your career. So what 00:15:36.230 --> 00:15:38.649 does this mean for you listening right now when 00:15:38.649 --> 00:15:40.769 you're scaring down your own professional misstep? 00:15:40.950 --> 00:15:43.850 The core takeaway from Pat Boone's 1957 album 00:15:43.850 --> 00:15:46.149 isn't about the intricacies of mid -century pop 00:15:46.149 --> 00:15:48.809 music. No, it is a blueprint for how to handle 00:15:48.809 --> 00:15:51.269 failure. This deep dive demonstrates that a strong 00:15:51.269 --> 00:15:53.710 foundation. Getting off to that early fast start 00:15:53.710 --> 00:15:56.340 with competent work. Combined with relentless 00:15:56.340 --> 00:15:59.519 forward momentum is your absolute best defense 00:15:59.519 --> 00:16:01.879 against a critical flop. You will eventually 00:16:01.879 --> 00:16:05.700 release a 2 .5 star project. We all have an album, 00:16:05.899 --> 00:16:08.340 Pat, in our professional history. The fatal mistake 00:16:08.340 --> 00:16:10.620 isn't releasing it. The mistake is letting that 00:16:10.620 --> 00:16:13.440 one project paralyze you and stop you from recording 00:16:13.440 --> 00:16:15.759 the next one. Which actually brings up a really 00:16:15.759 --> 00:16:18.600 compelling new angle to consider as we wrap up 00:16:18.600 --> 00:16:21.350 today. Oh, what's that? Well... When you examine 00:16:21.350 --> 00:16:24.529 this source material, the rigid two -minute runtimes, 00:16:24.889 --> 00:16:27.549 the reliance on a massive external network of 00:16:27.549 --> 00:16:29.649 songwriters like Jesse Stone and Joe Morris, 00:16:29.789 --> 00:16:32.460 and the sheer industrial volume of singles, It 00:16:32.460 --> 00:16:34.840 makes you wonder about the very nature of critique. 00:16:35.480 --> 00:16:38.679 If a 1950s pop album is essentially just a physical 00:16:38.679 --> 00:16:40.620 container for two minute commodities written 00:16:40.620 --> 00:16:42.899 by a dozen different people. Does the concept 00:16:42.899 --> 00:16:46.320 of a bad album even apply to the artist? Right. 00:16:46.779 --> 00:16:50.139 Or when a pure vocal interpreter releases a 2 00:16:50.139 --> 00:16:53.340 .5 star record, is it actually a failure of the 00:16:53.340 --> 00:16:56.379 era's A and R machine and supply chain rather 00:16:56.379 --> 00:16:58.679 than a true reflection of the artist's legacy? 00:16:58.860 --> 00:17:00.990 That's a great point. If an artist is essentially 00:17:00.990 --> 00:17:03.350 a brand slapped onto hundreds of manufactured 00:17:03.350 --> 00:17:06.630 tracks, does the traditional metric of artistic 00:17:06.630 --> 00:17:09.730 failure even exist for them? Does early success 00:17:09.730 --> 00:17:13.029 grant a permanent lifelong license to experiment, 00:17:13.329 --> 00:17:16.230 even if you fail? That completely flips the script 00:17:16.230 --> 00:17:19.009 on how we view a bad review. And it's definitely 00:17:19.009 --> 00:17:20.730 something to chew on the next time you're worried 00:17:20.730 --> 00:17:22.930 about carrying the blame for a project that misses 00:17:22.930 --> 00:17:25.150 the mark. Thank you so much for joining us on 00:17:25.150 --> 00:17:26.849 this Deep Dive. Keep building your discography. 00:17:26.950 --> 00:17:30.029 Don't let the 2 .5 star days derail your momentum, 00:17:30.230 --> 00:17:31.450 and we will see you next time.