WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.759 Welcome in, everyone. We are jumping straight 00:00:02.759 --> 00:00:05.379 into something incredibly compelling today. Yeah, 00:00:05.379 --> 00:00:08.519 we really are. It's a fascinating one. For this 00:00:08.519 --> 00:00:10.859 deep dive, our mission is to examine a piece 00:00:10.859 --> 00:00:13.859 of 1980s pop culture that most people, you know, 00:00:13.900 --> 00:00:15.539 they just take it completely at face value. Right. 00:00:15.560 --> 00:00:18.339 They just hear a catchy tune. Exactly. But it 00:00:18.339 --> 00:00:22.600 actually houses this massive, profound contradiction 00:00:22.600 --> 00:00:24.980 about its own meaning. A really massive one. 00:00:25.039 --> 00:00:27.839 So today we are looking at the 1984 Bananarama 00:00:27.839 --> 00:00:30.699 single. Robert De Niro's Waiting. Classic track. 00:00:31.300 --> 00:00:34.299 It is. But the goal today isn't just to revisit 00:00:34.299 --> 00:00:37.560 some nostalgic synth pop song. We're exploring 00:00:37.560 --> 00:00:40.119 a disagreement so deep that even the people who 00:00:40.119 --> 00:00:42.179 sat in the exact same room and wrote the song 00:00:42.179 --> 00:00:44.219 together. Literally the same room. Yeah, they 00:00:44.219 --> 00:00:46.359 cannot agree on what it is actually about. It's 00:00:46.359 --> 00:00:49.299 a perfect case study really in how we consume 00:00:49.299 --> 00:00:52.759 art and how creators process their own legacy. 00:00:52.799 --> 00:00:55.740 Absolutely. You have this vibrant, highly stylized 00:00:55.740 --> 00:00:58.780 artifact of 80s pop and underneath it is this 00:00:58.780 --> 00:01:01.939 tangled web of memory, conflicting realities 00:01:01.939 --> 00:01:04.420 and just a collaborative mystery. So we're going 00:01:04.420 --> 00:01:06.780 to break down the environment this track was 00:01:06.780 --> 00:01:10.180 born into, right? The visual culture that surrounded 00:01:10.180 --> 00:01:13.819 its release and ultimately that deeply jarring 00:01:13.819 --> 00:01:17.019 contradiction regarding its lyrics that emerged 00:01:17.019 --> 00:01:19.980 decades later. Decades. It took so long for this 00:01:19.980 --> 00:01:22.379 to come out. OK, let's unpack this. Because to 00:01:22.379 --> 00:01:24.099 understand the scale of the disconnect we're 00:01:24.099 --> 00:01:26.040 going to talk about, you first have to understand 00:01:26.040 --> 00:01:28.659 the sheer footprint of the song itself. Right. 00:01:28.780 --> 00:01:31.280 You need the context of how big this was. Exactly. 00:01:31.700 --> 00:01:34.980 So it was released on February 20th, 1984. It 00:01:34.980 --> 00:01:37.659 served as the second single from Bananarama's 00:01:37.659 --> 00:01:40.430 self -titled second studio album. And the writing 00:01:40.430 --> 00:01:42.069 credits are really important here. Right. The 00:01:42.069 --> 00:01:44.510 credits go to the three core members. So that's 00:01:44.510 --> 00:01:47.489 Sarah Dallen, Siopan Fehe, and Karen Woodward. 00:01:47.769 --> 00:01:50.170 Along with their producers, Steve Jolly and Tony 00:01:50.170 --> 00:01:53.109 Swain. And sonically, I mean, this is just quintessential 00:01:53.109 --> 00:01:55.650 new wave and synth pop. Oh, absolutely. It's 00:01:55.650 --> 00:01:57.489 the kind of production that completely defines 00:01:57.489 --> 00:02:00.109 the era. Yeah. Which is why Billboard would later 00:02:00.109 --> 00:02:02.989 rank it at number 74 on their list of the 100 00:02:02.989 --> 00:02:05.700 greatest girl group songs of all time. And they 00:02:05.700 --> 00:02:07.319 described it perfectly, I think. They called 00:02:07.319 --> 00:02:11.300 it Breezy of the Moment synth pop. Breezy is 00:02:11.300 --> 00:02:13.819 the exact right word for how it sounds. And it 00:02:13.819 --> 00:02:15.860 wasn't some fringe release either. It was a major 00:02:15.860 --> 00:02:18.180 cultural moment. Especially in Europe. Right. 00:02:18.300 --> 00:02:20.819 It peaked at number three on the UK singles chart. 00:02:21.520 --> 00:02:24.939 It hit the top 10 in Ireland, Luxembourg, Switzerland, 00:02:25.500 --> 00:02:28.039 West Germany. and even South Africa. Which is 00:02:28.039 --> 00:02:30.060 what makes its performance in the U .S. such 00:02:30.060 --> 00:02:32.060 an interesting little footnote. Oh, totally. 00:02:32.240 --> 00:02:34.500 It barely made a blip over here. Right. It only 00:02:34.500 --> 00:02:37.020 peaked at number 95 on the U .S. Billboard Hot 00:02:37.020 --> 00:02:39.879 100. Just briefly. It really highlights that 00:02:39.879 --> 00:02:43.180 divide we often see in the 80s, right? Between 00:02:43.180 --> 00:02:47.090 European synth pop dominance and Well, what American 00:02:47.090 --> 00:02:48.949 radio was actually willing to champion at the 00:02:48.949 --> 00:02:50.949 time. Yeah, there was definitely a transatlantic 00:02:50.949 --> 00:02:53.729 disconnect. But where this release really cemented 00:02:53.729 --> 00:02:56.330 its legacy and where the band's marketing genius 00:02:56.330 --> 00:02:59.370 really shines is in the physical media strategy. 00:02:59.610 --> 00:03:02.150 The physical releases for this song are legendary 00:03:02.150 --> 00:03:04.650 for collectors. Oh, I love the physical media 00:03:04.650 --> 00:03:07.669 from this era. London Records essentially turned 00:03:07.669 --> 00:03:10.580 this single into a modular collector set. They 00:03:10.580 --> 00:03:13.500 did. They capitalized brilliantly on the tactile 00:03:13.500 --> 00:03:16.560 nature of 80s music consumption. Like, certain 00:03:16.560 --> 00:03:19.680 copies of the UK 7 -inch single included cutout 00:03:19.680 --> 00:03:22.680 postcards of either Faye, Woodward, or Dallin. 00:03:22.960 --> 00:03:24.860 You had to buy multiple copies if you wanted 00:03:24.860 --> 00:03:27.860 all of them. Exactly. And then you had three 00:03:27.860 --> 00:03:30.699 separate picture disc releases, each one spotlighting 00:03:30.699 --> 00:03:32.960 a different member. But the 12 -inch extended 00:03:32.960 --> 00:03:35.539 versions, that's where you see the real blueprint 00:03:35.539 --> 00:03:38.870 for modern pop group marketing. Yes. The label 00:03:38.870 --> 00:03:42.270 pressed the UK 12 -inch on three distinct vinyl 00:03:42.270 --> 00:03:44.870 colors, and they assigned a specific color to 00:03:44.870 --> 00:03:47.250 each member's persona. Right, so Karen Woodward 00:03:47.250 --> 00:03:50.449 was pressed on pink vinyl. Sion Fehe was on green. 00:03:50.729 --> 00:03:53.319 And Sarah Dallin was on blue. and they each featured 00:03:53.319 --> 00:03:55.759 a large picture label. It is such a striking 00:03:55.759 --> 00:03:58.439 visual strategy. I mean, long before the Spice 00:03:58.439 --> 00:04:01.379 Girls were handing out highly specific individual 00:04:01.379 --> 00:04:04.139 personas to their fans, Bananarama was effectively 00:04:04.139 --> 00:04:06.139 doing the exact same thing through colored wax. 00:04:06.259 --> 00:04:08.199 Yeah, you weren't just buying the single. No, 00:04:08.379 --> 00:04:10.460 you were signaling which member of the group 00:04:10.460 --> 00:04:13.030 you aligned with. It was gamified fandom. And 00:04:13.030 --> 00:04:15.810 beyond the marketing, the physical records themselves 00:04:15.810 --> 00:04:17.930 contained these great little eccentricities. 00:04:17.970 --> 00:04:21.329 Oh, like the B -sides. Exactly. The B -side across 00:04:21.329 --> 00:04:24.329 the formats was a track called Push. But on the 00:04:24.329 --> 00:04:27.110 12 -inch, instead of an expected extended remix 00:04:27.110 --> 00:04:30.250 of Push, the track is preceded by a completely 00:04:30.250 --> 00:04:33.149 unlisted alternate version of a brief interlude 00:04:33.149 --> 00:04:36.189 called Link. Right. And Link is the track that 00:04:36.189 --> 00:04:38.870 closes outside one of the main Bananarama album. 00:04:38.990 --> 00:04:41.810 Tucking an alternate version onto the 12 inch 00:04:41.810 --> 00:04:44.290 single unannounced, I mean that is exactly the 00:04:44.290 --> 00:04:46.769 kind of Easter egg that rewarded hardcore listeners. 00:04:47.389 --> 00:04:50.079 And that loyalty clearly paid off. Yeah. Bannerama 00:04:50.079 --> 00:04:52.220 actually re -recorded Robert De Niro's Waiting 00:04:52.220 --> 00:04:55.019 Twice in the early 2000s. They did. First for 00:04:55.019 --> 00:04:57.540 the G .A .Y. compilation in 2000. And again for 00:04:57.540 --> 00:05:00.279 their Exotica album in 2001. So they clearly 00:05:00.279 --> 00:05:02.560 viewed this track as a cornerstone of their catalog. 00:05:02.759 --> 00:05:05.060 Without a doubt. And that enduring legacy makes 00:05:05.060 --> 00:05:07.100 the visual representation of the song all the 00:05:07.100 --> 00:05:09.019 more interesting to analyze. The music video. 00:05:09.160 --> 00:05:11.600 Yes, the music video. It was directed by Duncan 00:05:11.600 --> 00:05:14.720 Gibbons. And it is a perfect snapshot of mid 00:05:14.720 --> 00:05:18.279 -80s literalism. It really is. Gibbons basically 00:05:18.279 --> 00:05:21.420 took the time looked at Robert De Niro's filmography, 00:05:21.920 --> 00:05:24.120 and just built a miniature cinematic narrative 00:05:24.120 --> 00:05:27.160 around classic mobster tropes. It's so literal. 00:05:27.399 --> 00:05:29.199 So picture this for you listening if you haven't 00:05:29.199 --> 00:05:31.540 seen it. Yeah. You have the band walking down 00:05:31.540 --> 00:05:35.000 these dark, dimly lit city streets. Very moody 00:05:35.000 --> 00:05:37.519 lighting. Very moody. And they're being shadowed 00:05:37.519 --> 00:05:40.459 by men in trench coats and fedoras. Real mafia 00:05:40.459 --> 00:05:42.620 movie stuff. Right. And the tension ramps up 00:05:42.620 --> 00:05:44.800 during the bridge. They show Sarah Dallin running 00:05:44.800 --> 00:05:46.459 down the street, looking over her shoulder in 00:05:46.459 --> 00:05:49.740 panic. It feels like a thriller. It does. But 00:05:49.740 --> 00:05:51.959 it's a complete head fake. A total misdirection. 00:05:52.199 --> 00:05:55.500 Because the climax of the video occurs when the 00:05:55.500 --> 00:05:57.699 women are back in their apartment, the doorbell 00:05:57.699 --> 00:06:00.720 rings, Woodward nervously creeps up and opens 00:06:00.720 --> 00:06:03.139 it, and a menacing stalker is standing right 00:06:03.139 --> 00:06:05.639 there. And he's holding a classic mafia -style 00:06:05.639 --> 00:06:08.040 violin case. Right, the ultimate trope. What's 00:06:08.040 --> 00:06:10.240 fascinating here is how the director completely 00:06:10.240 --> 00:06:12.800 punctures the suspense. So funny. The violin 00:06:12.800 --> 00:06:15.680 case falls open, and instead of a Tommy gun, 00:06:16.000 --> 00:06:18.620 it reveals three pizzas and a delivery sign. 00:06:19.000 --> 00:06:20.959 A pizza delivery sign just taped to the inside. 00:06:21.259 --> 00:06:24.000 Exactly. The tension evaporates into this lighthearted 00:06:24.000 --> 00:06:26.579 comedic resolution where everyone just sits around 00:06:26.579 --> 00:06:29.860 eating pizza. They're all laughing. Yeah. It's 00:06:29.860 --> 00:06:33.600 an incredibly breezy, sunny interpretation that 00:06:33.600 --> 00:06:36.579 matches the upbeat synth pop production perfectly. 00:06:37.139 --> 00:06:40.550 But does that... literal comedic mobster narrative 00:06:40.550 --> 00:06:44.509 actually makes sense if we consider the darker 00:06:44.509 --> 00:06:46.990 lyrical themes the band claimed later. That is 00:06:46.990 --> 00:06:49.170 the big question. Or was the director just completely 00:06:49.170 --> 00:06:51.629 out of the loop? Because here's where it gets 00:06:51.629 --> 00:06:54.170 really interesting. This is the core of the mystery. 00:06:54.310 --> 00:06:57.209 Right. If you look beneath that upbeat production, 00:06:57.529 --> 00:06:59.509 beneath the pink vinyl and the pizza delivery 00:06:59.509 --> 00:07:02.810 video, the actual creators of the song harbor 00:07:02.810 --> 00:07:05.269 two intensely conflicting realities about what 00:07:05.269 --> 00:07:07.370 those lyrics mean. This is exactly where the 00:07:07.370 --> 00:07:09.490 artifact transforms from standard pop trivia 00:07:09.490 --> 00:07:12.509 into a deep psychological mystery. Yes. How did 00:07:12.509 --> 00:07:14.870 the people who wrote the words perceive the art 00:07:14.870 --> 00:07:17.209 they created? Let's examine the first perspective. 00:07:17.529 --> 00:07:20.470 So jump forward to 2017. Thirty three years after 00:07:20.470 --> 00:07:24.170 the song came out. Right. Bananarama gave a reunion 00:07:24.170 --> 00:07:27.949 interview to The Guardian. And while they were 00:07:27.949 --> 00:07:31.189 discussing their legacy, Siobhan Feihei stated, 00:07:31.389 --> 00:07:34.569 and I quote, The thing I'm proudest of is that 00:07:34.569 --> 00:07:37.949 we made quirky pop. The lyrics were much darker 00:07:37.949 --> 00:07:39.990 than you'd imagine. Okay, darker than you'd imagine. 00:07:40.250 --> 00:07:43.170 And then she explicitly claimed that Robert De 00:07:43.170 --> 00:07:46.269 Niro's waiting is actually about date rape. Which 00:07:46.269 --> 00:07:48.949 is a staggering claim for a song that most people 00:07:48.949 --> 00:07:52.209 think is just a fun 80s bop. It really is. And 00:07:52.209 --> 00:07:54.350 Karen Woodward immediately backed her up in the 00:07:54.350 --> 00:07:56.470 same interview. She literally told the fans, 00:07:56.750 --> 00:07:58.620 you'll listen to it with New Year's now. It's 00:07:58.620 --> 00:08:00.800 a complete recontextualization of everything 00:08:00.800 --> 00:08:03.100 we just talked about. Completely. Suddenly, that 00:08:03.100 --> 00:08:05.160 image of Dallin running through the dark streets 00:08:05.160 --> 00:08:07.439 in the music video, even with the comedic pizza 00:08:07.439 --> 00:08:10.300 ending, feels incredibly unsettling. It changes 00:08:10.300 --> 00:08:12.279 the entire tone. And remember that Billboard 00:08:12.279 --> 00:08:14.339 ranking we mentioned earlier, where they called 00:08:14.339 --> 00:08:16.759 the song subversive? Yes. Well, if we accept 00:08:16.759 --> 00:08:19.699 Faye Hay and Woodward's 2017 claim, calling it 00:08:19.699 --> 00:08:22.379 subversive is a massive understatement. It means 00:08:22.379 --> 00:08:25.680 they smuggled a deeply traumatic commentary on 00:08:25.680 --> 00:08:29.029 sexual assault. right onto daytime radio. And 00:08:29.029 --> 00:08:31.709 onto top of the pops. Yeah, wrapped in this bouncy, 00:08:32.149 --> 00:08:34.450 infectious synth melody. But wait, because we 00:08:34.450 --> 00:08:36.269 have to look at the complete picture. The narrative 00:08:36.269 --> 00:08:38.490 doesn't stop with that Guardian interview. No, 00:08:38.509 --> 00:08:40.549 it doesn't. And this is where the contradiction 00:08:40.549 --> 00:08:45.450 comes in. Two years later, in 2019, Sarah Dallen 00:08:45.450 --> 00:08:48.129 gave her own interview to The Telegraph. And 00:08:48.129 --> 00:08:50.929 she had a very different take. She unequivocally 00:08:50.929 --> 00:08:53.970 rejected that dark interpretation. When asked 00:08:53.970 --> 00:08:56.690 about it, she insisted the song was her words, 00:08:57.110 --> 00:08:59.789 just about hero worship. Hero worship, that's 00:08:59.789 --> 00:09:03.190 a huge pivot. Her exact quote was, it wasn't 00:09:03.190 --> 00:09:06.039 about rape. I don't know where that came from. 00:09:06.440 --> 00:09:09.480 It's absolute rubbish. Calling your own co -writer's 00:09:09.480 --> 00:09:12.519 interpretation absolute rubbish is a profound 00:09:12.519 --> 00:09:15.419 denial. It completely shatters the idea of a 00:09:15.419 --> 00:09:17.899 unified creative vision. It really does. And 00:09:17.899 --> 00:09:19.679 Dallen had even mentioned in earlier interviews 00:09:19.679 --> 00:09:21.919 that her initial goal for the track was simply 00:09:21.919 --> 00:09:25.200 to capture the vibe of Grace Jones' pull up to 00:09:25.200 --> 00:09:27.480 the bumper. Which is interesting in itself. Right. 00:09:27.840 --> 00:09:30.000 She admitted it didn't quite work out that way 00:09:30.000 --> 00:09:32.539 sonically. But her reality remains that they 00:09:32.539 --> 00:09:35.000 were writing an innocent song about having a 00:09:35.000 --> 00:09:37.500 crush on a movie star. If we connect this to 00:09:37.500 --> 00:09:40.440 the bigger picture, it forces us to analyze the 00:09:40.440 --> 00:09:43.190 mechanics of a collaborative writing room. Think 00:09:43.190 --> 00:09:45.870 about it. You have three band members and two 00:09:45.870 --> 00:09:49.529 producers in a room in 1983 or 1984. How does 00:09:49.529 --> 00:09:52.409 a single writing session accommodate such wildly 00:09:52.409 --> 00:09:55.389 different realities? Did one person write the 00:09:55.389 --> 00:09:57.590 hook with an innocent celebrity crush in mind 00:09:57.590 --> 00:10:00.169 while another wrote a verse channeling something 00:10:00.169 --> 00:10:03.090 much darker and they simply never communicated 00:10:03.090 --> 00:10:06.169 the intent? That's the part that is so difficult 00:10:06.169 --> 00:10:08.710 to wrap your head around. It's not a subtle disagreement 00:10:08.710 --> 00:10:11.049 over the tone of a chord progression. Not at 00:10:11.049 --> 00:10:13.419 all. One half of the writing team believes they 00:10:13.419 --> 00:10:16.360 authored a heavy, serious commentary on sexual 00:10:16.360 --> 00:10:18.620 assault. And the other half believes they authored 00:10:18.620 --> 00:10:21.840 a light -hearted ode to a celebrity actor. To 00:10:21.840 --> 00:10:24.200 the point of outright dismissing the darker claim 00:10:24.200 --> 00:10:26.299 in the press. It's fascinating. It brings up 00:10:26.299 --> 00:10:29.120 the concept of the death of the author, that 00:10:29.120 --> 00:10:31.820 literary idea that once a piece of art is created, 00:10:32.100 --> 00:10:34.580 the creator's intentions are secondary to the 00:10:34.580 --> 00:10:36.440 audience's interpretation. Right, the audience 00:10:36.440 --> 00:10:39.279 decides what it means. But here, the authors 00:10:39.279 --> 00:10:41.379 themselves are experiencing a localized version 00:10:41.379 --> 00:10:44.080 of that phenomenon. Memory, personal trauma, 00:10:44.279 --> 00:10:46.700 and just the sheer passage of time have completely 00:10:46.700 --> 00:10:49.340 warped the shared history of this one song. And 00:10:49.340 --> 00:10:52.059 we have to consider how Public relations and 00:10:52.059 --> 00:10:54.279 shifting cultural landscapes play a role too. 00:10:54.659 --> 00:10:58.139 Like in 2017, revealing a subversive feminist 00:10:58.139 --> 00:11:01.179 underpinning to an 80s pop hit adds critical 00:11:01.179 --> 00:11:03.419 weight to their legacy. It fits perfectly into 00:11:03.419 --> 00:11:05.799 the cultural conversations happening in 2017. 00:11:06.019 --> 00:11:09.299 Exactly. But then in 2019, perhaps the desire 00:11:09.299 --> 00:11:11.820 was to protect the innocent nostalgia of the 00:11:11.820 --> 00:11:15.059 era. To just let a pop song be a pop song. Right. 00:11:15.220 --> 00:11:17.659 And you brought up Dallin wanting the vibe of 00:11:17.659 --> 00:11:20.559 Grace Jones's Pull Up to the Bumper. Yeah, that 00:11:20.559 --> 00:11:22.620 detail always sticks with me. Adds a whole other 00:11:22.620 --> 00:11:25.019 layer of weirdness to this. I so. Because Pull 00:11:25.019 --> 00:11:27.820 Up to the Bumper is legendary for its intense 00:11:27.820 --> 00:11:30.559 double entendres and its gritty club -focused 00:11:30.559 --> 00:11:33.320 edge. Very true. If Dallen wanted that specific 00:11:33.320 --> 00:11:35.679 energy, but claims the lyrical result of her 00:11:35.679 --> 00:11:38.759 own song was purely innocent hero worship, there 00:11:38.759 --> 00:11:41.500 is a massive disconnect between intention and 00:11:41.500 --> 00:11:44.519 execution, even within her own personal memory 00:11:44.519 --> 00:11:47.059 of the event. That is a great point. It suggests 00:11:47.059 --> 00:11:49.460 a creative environment where ideas were just 00:11:49.460 --> 00:11:51.980 thrown into the mix without a singular guiding 00:11:51.980 --> 00:11:55.720 manifesto. The result is essentially a Rorschach 00:11:55.720 --> 00:11:59.399 test of a pop song. Both realities exist simultaneously 00:11:59.399 --> 00:12:02.080 because human memory is fallible, especially 00:12:02.080 --> 00:12:05.139 when parsing out who contributed what to a pop 00:12:05.139 --> 00:12:07.919 song over 30 years ago. Yeah, we can't definitively 00:12:07.919 --> 00:12:10.279 point to one version of history as the objective 00:12:10.279 --> 00:12:12.379 truth because the primary sources themselves 00:12:12.379 --> 00:12:14.519 are at war over it. Exactly. So what does this 00:12:14.519 --> 00:12:16.480 all mean? We started out looking at a highly 00:12:16.480 --> 00:12:19.340 successful 1984 synth pop single. A huge hit. 00:12:19.620 --> 00:12:21.720 We examined the ingenious physical marketing. 00:12:21.929 --> 00:12:24.830 the pink, green, and blue vinyl that gamified 00:12:24.830 --> 00:12:27.870 fan identity. We analyzed a music video that 00:12:27.870 --> 00:12:30.809 played on literal mafia tropes for comedic effect. 00:12:31.149 --> 00:12:34.049 But beneath all that 80s gloss, we found a heavily 00:12:34.049 --> 00:12:37.120 contested legacy. It is a song that functions 00:12:37.120 --> 00:12:40.279 simultaneously as a harmless celebrity crush 00:12:40.279 --> 00:12:43.580 anthem and a dark narrative about assault. Depending 00:12:43.580 --> 00:12:46.360 entirely on which of its creators happens to 00:12:46.360 --> 00:12:48.659 be holding the microphone on any given day. It 00:12:48.659 --> 00:12:50.500 really strips away the illusion that the pop 00:12:50.500 --> 00:12:53.500 machine operates with perfect clarity. The surface 00:12:53.500 --> 00:12:56.580 level gloss often hides a deeply fractured creative 00:12:56.580 --> 00:12:59.399 process. It really does. So the next time you 00:12:59.399 --> 00:13:02.220 are tapping your foot to a breezy nostalgic track 00:13:02.220 --> 00:13:05.320 from that era, keep Bananarama in mind. Look 00:13:05.320 --> 00:13:08.559 a little closer. Exactly. Remember that the pristine 00:13:08.559 --> 00:13:10.759 synthesizer melodies and the perfectly curated 00:13:10.759 --> 00:13:13.580 marketing campaigns might be masking a profound 00:13:13.580 --> 00:13:15.679 disagreement about what the music actually stands 00:13:15.679 --> 00:13:18.299 for. It is a perfect reminder to look closer 00:13:18.299 --> 00:13:20.720 at the things we think we understand. Beautifully 00:13:20.720 --> 00:13:22.740 said. And it leaves us with an important question, 00:13:22.940 --> 00:13:25.120 something for you to consider long after we wrap 00:13:25.120 --> 00:13:27.399 up today. I love this part. We are conditioned 00:13:27.399 --> 00:13:29.860 to believe that the artist has the final definitive 00:13:29.860 --> 00:13:32.700 word on their work. But if the original creators 00:13:32.700 --> 00:13:35.960 are alive and they publicly and vehemently contradict 00:13:35.960 --> 00:13:37.879 each other about the fundamental meaning of their 00:13:37.879 --> 00:13:40.320 art who actually owns the truth of that song 00:13:40.320 --> 00:13:42.620 once it exists in the world, is it the writers 00:13:42.620 --> 00:13:45.019 who can't agree? Or does the truth ultimately 00:13:45.019 --> 00:13:47.159 belong to you, the audience, deciding what it 00:13:47.159 --> 00:13:48.059 means when you hear it?