WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.660 Welcome back to the Deep Dive. Think about the 00:00:02.660 --> 00:00:05.099 music you listen to every day. Yeah. It's just 00:00:05.099 --> 00:00:09.759 fascinating how a seemingly simple three -minute 00:00:09.759 --> 00:00:13.919 pop song can become this massive magnet for controversy 00:00:13.919 --> 00:00:17.199 and record -breaking success and intense public 00:00:17.199 --> 00:00:19.579 speculation. Oh, absolutely. So today we have 00:00:19.579 --> 00:00:23.620 a very specific mission. We are going to explore 00:00:23.620 --> 00:00:26.329 the journey of Katy Perry's hit song... part 00:00:26.329 --> 00:00:29.469 of me and we're using a comprehensive wikipedia 00:00:29.469 --> 00:00:32.210 article as our roadmap for today's deep dive 00:00:32.210 --> 00:00:34.890 just to trace exactly how this track came to 00:00:34.890 --> 00:00:37.890 be right to set the scene for you this is a dance 00:00:37.890 --> 00:00:40.390 pop and power pop anthem that was originally 00:00:40.390 --> 00:00:43.250 left off the 2010 teenage dream album which is 00:00:43.250 --> 00:00:46.549 wild to think about it really is only to be resurrected 00:00:46.549 --> 00:00:49.490 in 2012 as an out of the box number one hit And 00:00:49.490 --> 00:00:51.210 if you're wondering why you should care about 00:00:51.210 --> 00:00:53.090 the history of a pop song from that specific 00:00:53.090 --> 00:00:56.049 era, stick with us. Because this isn't just about 00:00:56.049 --> 00:00:58.329 a catchy tune with a good beat. But it's also 00:00:58.329 --> 00:01:01.070 a brilliant case study in how pop music timing, 00:01:01.289 --> 00:01:03.909 a heavily scrutinized personal narrative and 00:01:03.909 --> 00:01:07.090 visual media can all collide to create a true 00:01:07.090 --> 00:01:10.069 cultural moment. Exactly. We're going to explore 00:01:10.069 --> 00:01:13.709 how an artist's private life gets projected right 00:01:13.709 --> 00:01:15.769 onto their art, whether they intend for it to 00:01:15.769 --> 00:01:17.719 happen or not. Right. So I want to start by going 00:01:17.719 --> 00:01:21.900 back to the origins of the song, which actually 00:01:21.900 --> 00:01:24.659 kicked off in 2010 during the writing sessions 00:01:24.659 --> 00:01:27.060 for Teenage Dream. Yeah. Those sessions were 00:01:27.060 --> 00:01:29.780 legendary. Right. If you remember the pop landscape 00:01:29.780 --> 00:01:32.340 back then, those sessions produced some of the 00:01:32.340 --> 00:01:34.879 defining hits of the decade. And the songwriting 00:01:34.879 --> 00:01:37.239 team here was just a powerhouse roster. Oh, for 00:01:37.239 --> 00:01:40.500 sure. You had Katy Perry herself. Dr. Luke, Max 00:01:40.500 --> 00:01:42.540 Martin, and Bonnie McKee. That's pop royalty 00:01:42.540 --> 00:01:45.120 right there. It is. And the story of how the 00:01:45.120 --> 00:01:46.700 lyrics came together is a great piece of pop 00:01:46.700 --> 00:01:49.680 history. So according to our sources, Perry and 00:01:49.680 --> 00:01:52.620 McKee had been casual friends, and Perry asked 00:01:52.620 --> 00:01:54.799 for her help on a track she'd been working on. 00:01:54.879 --> 00:01:57.239 So McKee actually stayed up all night writing 00:01:57.239 --> 00:02:00.159 the lyrics. And when she finally presented them, 00:02:00.340 --> 00:02:03.640 Perry was so ecstatic that by the time she heard 00:02:03.640 --> 00:02:06.560 just the third line, she shouted, we're buying 00:02:06.560 --> 00:02:10.349 you a car. I love that story. That kind of immediate 00:02:10.349 --> 00:02:13.250 visceral reaction in the studio is exactly what 00:02:13.250 --> 00:02:16.129 every songwriter chases. Yeah. But what really 00:02:16.129 --> 00:02:18.250 stands out in the source material is the strategic 00:02:18.250 --> 00:02:21.129 restraint shown by Perry and her team right after 00:02:21.129 --> 00:02:23.189 that moment. What do you mean? Well, they knew 00:02:23.189 --> 00:02:25.449 they had a hit on their hands. Perry explicitly 00:02:25.449 --> 00:02:27.849 stated that she always knew Part of Me was a 00:02:27.849 --> 00:02:30.659 special song. But they held it back. Wait, if 00:02:30.659 --> 00:02:33.219 they knew it was a guaranteed hit, why on earth 00:02:33.219 --> 00:02:35.080 would they leave it off Teenage Dream? That sounds 00:02:35.080 --> 00:02:37.219 like a terrible business move. It sounds totally 00:02:37.219 --> 00:02:39.599 counterintuitive, right? Yeah. But it was about 00:02:39.599 --> 00:02:42.099 artistic cohesion. They didn't put it on the 00:02:42.099 --> 00:02:44.159 original Teenage Dream album because Perry felt 00:02:44.159 --> 00:02:46.900 it simply didn't fit the composition of that 00:02:46.900 --> 00:02:49.900 specific record. She wanted the album to be a 00:02:49.900 --> 00:02:53.580 complete package. So to include part of me. She 00:02:53.580 --> 00:02:55.620 would have had to cut another track that made 00:02:55.620 --> 00:02:57.580 more sense for the overall vibe they were going 00:02:57.580 --> 00:03:00.620 for. And holding back a guaranteed hit takes 00:03:00.620 --> 00:03:02.699 an immense amount of discipline, especially in 00:03:02.699 --> 00:03:04.840 an industry that usually demands you cash in 00:03:04.840 --> 00:03:08.319 immediately. It really is a gamble. But as we 00:03:08.319 --> 00:03:11.180 see so often, keeping a pop song locked in the 00:03:11.180 --> 00:03:13.960 vault is easier said than done. Oh, definitely. 00:03:14.139 --> 00:03:16.460 The timeline of how this song eventually reached 00:03:16.460 --> 00:03:20.439 the public is chaotic. A demo of the track leaked 00:03:20.439 --> 00:03:24.789 in full. Way back in late 2010. Right. And, of 00:03:24.789 --> 00:03:26.389 course, the internet did what the internet does. 00:03:26.710 --> 00:03:29.550 Fans immediately started speculating. Natural. 00:03:29.669 --> 00:03:31.629 People were theorizing it was a leftover cut, 00:03:31.810 --> 00:03:35.050 analyzing the raw audio. hoping for a re -release. 00:03:35.150 --> 00:03:38.169 And then, surprisingly, a reworked version of 00:03:38.169 --> 00:03:41.409 the song leaked in February 2012. Literally just 00:03:41.409 --> 00:03:43.210 two days before it was supposed to have its official 00:03:43.210 --> 00:03:45.969 worldwide premiere. Which is crazy. Normally, 00:03:46.009 --> 00:03:48.710 leaks are an artist's worst nightmare. It usually 00:03:48.710 --> 00:03:51.069 ruins the marketing rollout entirely. But in 00:03:51.069 --> 00:03:54.030 this specific case, those leaks actually fueled 00:03:54.030 --> 00:03:56.789 the anticipation rather than hurting the song's 00:03:56.789 --> 00:04:00.039 momentum. It primed the audience. When Perry 00:04:00.039 --> 00:04:02.379 officially announced the reissue of her album, 00:04:02.560 --> 00:04:05.400 which was titled Teenage Dream The Complete Confection, 00:04:05.500 --> 00:04:08.300 releasing part of me as the lead single just 00:04:08.300 --> 00:04:10.539 made perfect sense. Oh, that makes sense. For 00:04:10.539 --> 00:04:12.759 the fans, it was the missing piece they had been 00:04:12.759 --> 00:04:15.800 whispering about for over a year. Okay, let's 00:04:15.800 --> 00:04:18.220 get into the anatomy of the song itself, because 00:04:18.220 --> 00:04:21.800 sonically, the sources break down exactly why 00:04:21.800 --> 00:04:24.100 this was built to be an anthem. Yes, let's do 00:04:24.100 --> 00:04:28.839 it. We are talking about a 130... Beats Per Minute 00:04:28.839 --> 00:04:32.100 House Beat, written in the key of D minor. And 00:04:32.100 --> 00:04:33.579 we should probably unpack what that actually 00:04:33.579 --> 00:04:36.399 means for you as a listener. Please do. So 130 00:04:36.399 --> 00:04:38.439 beats per minute is essentially the sweet spot 00:04:38.439 --> 00:04:40.660 for a club anthem. It physically pushes your 00:04:40.660 --> 00:04:42.600 heart rate up. It makes you want to move. Right. 00:04:42.680 --> 00:04:45.660 But pairing that driving, energetic house rhythm 00:04:45.660 --> 00:04:47.899 with the key of D minor. Which is the sadder 00:04:47.899 --> 00:04:50.160 key, right? Exactly. D minor naturally sounds 00:04:50.160 --> 00:04:53.160 a bit sad or somber. That pairing is what gives 00:04:53.160 --> 00:04:55.800 the song its crying in the club feel. That makes 00:04:55.800 --> 00:04:57.980 so much sense when you look at how the song opens. 00:04:58.060 --> 00:05:00.899 It kicks off with this very emotionally defeated 00:05:00.899 --> 00:05:03.610 intro. She sings, days like this, I want to drive 00:05:03.610 --> 00:05:05.850 away, pack my bags and watch your shadow fade. 00:05:05.970 --> 00:05:08.829 Yeah. But then the structure shifts. The bridge 00:05:08.829 --> 00:05:12.310 hits, the beat amplifies, and it turns into this 00:05:12.310 --> 00:05:15.209 incredibly aggressive, empowered chorus where 00:05:15.209 --> 00:05:17.129 she belts out, this is the part of me that you're 00:05:17.129 --> 00:05:19.370 never going to ever take away from me. The lyrics 00:05:19.370 --> 00:05:22.209 and the production work together as a complete 00:05:22.209 --> 00:05:25.129 masterclass in the unbreakable narrative. Right. 00:05:25.250 --> 00:05:28.790 The steady house beat literally mirrors the protagonist's 00:05:28.790 --> 00:05:31.389 growing strength. It starts out feeling drained, 00:05:31.610 --> 00:05:34.170 reflecting on how someone chewed her up and spit 00:05:34.170 --> 00:05:36.910 her out. Yeah. But as that tempo drives forward, 00:05:37.149 --> 00:05:40.300 the instrument... gets bolder matching her refusal 00:05:40.300 --> 00:05:44.040 to be broken this classic pop architecture taking 00:05:44.040 --> 00:05:47.139 personal pain and transforming it into a dance 00:05:47.139 --> 00:05:50.079 floor catharsis and that aggressive unbreakable 00:05:50.079 --> 00:05:52.160 chorus wasn't just catching fire on the dance 00:05:52.160 --> 00:05:54.819 floor it was exactly the kind of battle cry that 00:05:54.819 --> 00:05:57.600 tabloids were waiting for in early 2012 oh absolutely 00:05:57.600 --> 00:05:59.800 they were because of the timing of the song's 00:05:59.800 --> 00:06:02.589 official release Everyone assumed part of me 00:06:02.589 --> 00:06:05.370 was a direct, pointed response to Perry's highly 00:06:05.370 --> 00:06:07.750 publicized divorce from Russell Brand. Early 00:06:07.750 --> 00:06:11.540 on, when the demo first leaked in 2010, Rumors 00:06:11.540 --> 00:06:13.459 actually pointed to her ex -boyfriend, Trevi 00:06:13.459 --> 00:06:16.759 McCoy. Right, I remember that. But by 2012, the 00:06:16.759 --> 00:06:19.519 narrative shifted entirely to brand. Fans noticed 00:06:19.519 --> 00:06:23.079 slight lyric changes between the 2010 demo and 00:06:23.079 --> 00:06:26.040 the 2012 final version. Oh yeah, they dissected 00:06:26.040 --> 00:06:28.480 it. And the media just ran with it as proof that 00:06:28.480 --> 00:06:30.560 she was updating the song to reflect the divorce. 00:06:30.939 --> 00:06:33.160 The public practically demanded that the song 00:06:33.160 --> 00:06:35.759 be about her marriage ending. It fit the timeline 00:06:35.759 --> 00:06:39.050 perfectly in their eyes. It really did. But Perry's 00:06:39.050 --> 00:06:41.589 defense was surprisingly blunt, wasn't it? Oh, 00:06:41.589 --> 00:06:44.189 she didn't mince words at all. According to the 00:06:44.189 --> 00:06:46.509 sources, she was quoted saying, I'm not a dick, 00:06:46.589 --> 00:06:49.470 I'm going to tell the truth. Wow. Yeah, she completely 00:06:49.470 --> 00:06:52.170 denied it was about Brandt. She clarified that 00:06:52.170 --> 00:06:54.209 it was written two years prior during those teenage 00:06:54.209 --> 00:06:56.449 dream sessions we talked about. Right. She even 00:06:56.449 --> 00:06:58.329 mentioned that some people she worked with suggested 00:06:58.329 --> 00:07:00.350 she just lie and say she wrote it a couple of 00:07:00.350 --> 00:07:02.589 weeks ago to capitalize on the news cycle. Which 00:07:02.589 --> 00:07:05.370 is such an industry move. Exactly. Yeah. But 00:07:05.370 --> 00:07:07.829 she refused to do that. This raises a really 00:07:07.829 --> 00:07:10.389 important question for you to consider as a consumer 00:07:10.389 --> 00:07:13.189 of pop culture. Yeah. It highlights the constant 00:07:13.189 --> 00:07:16.170 tension between an artist's original intent and 00:07:16.170 --> 00:07:19.110 the public's desire for a real time soap opera. 00:07:19.230 --> 00:07:22.110 For sure. Perry noted how weird it felt comparing 00:07:22.110 --> 00:07:24.389 it to being in The Truman Show. Oh, that's a 00:07:24.389 --> 00:07:26.889 perfect comparison. Think about that. She wrote 00:07:26.889 --> 00:07:29.790 a song about resilience years before she desperately 00:07:29.790 --> 00:07:32.329 needed that resilience in the public eye. Right. 00:07:32.759 --> 00:07:35.439 But the public attached the meaning of the divorce 00:07:35.439 --> 00:07:38.259 to the song anyway, completely overriding its 00:07:38.259 --> 00:07:41.060 actual origin story in the studio. That dynamic 00:07:41.060 --> 00:07:44.779 is just wild. But if people thought the audio 00:07:44.779 --> 00:07:47.639 track was making a statement, the music video 00:07:47.639 --> 00:07:49.660 took things to a completely different level. 00:07:49.779 --> 00:07:52.120 Oh boy, did it. Let's talk about the Ben Moore 00:07:52.120 --> 00:07:55.439 directed video, which relies entirely on a heavy 00:07:55.439 --> 00:07:58.000 military metaphor. Yeah, let's get into it. The 00:07:58.000 --> 00:08:00.060 plot outlined in our sources goes like this. 00:08:16.500 --> 00:08:29.870 Right. Yeah. Yeah. rigorous basic combat instruction 00:08:29.870 --> 00:08:32.889 eventually transforming into a camouflaged warrior 00:08:32.889 --> 00:08:36.549 dancing beneath a massive garrison flag. And 00:08:36.549 --> 00:08:38.389 the commitment to the concept was significant 00:08:38.389 --> 00:08:40.610 behind the scenes. It really was. They didn't 00:08:40.610 --> 00:08:42.769 just rent a Hollywood soundstage and dress up 00:08:42.769 --> 00:08:45.649 some actors. They filmed over three days at the 00:08:45.649 --> 00:08:49.409 actual USMC Camp Pendleton in Oceanside, California. 00:08:49.830 --> 00:08:52.970 Wow. perry went through real vigorous physical 00:08:52.970 --> 00:08:55.789 and mental combat training including the marine 00:08:55.789 --> 00:08:58.470 corps martial arts program that is intense very 00:08:58.470 --> 00:09:01.429 they used actual military equipment and rather 00:09:01.429 --> 00:09:04.070 than casting actors to play extras the video 00:09:04.070 --> 00:09:06.570 features real marines now as we get into the 00:09:06.570 --> 00:09:08.870 critical reception of this video we want to make 00:09:08.870 --> 00:09:11.730 it incredibly clear to you listening our goal 00:09:11.730 --> 00:09:14.129 here isn't to take a side on military aesthetics 00:09:14.129 --> 00:09:17.120 in pop culture We are impartially reporting on 00:09:17.120 --> 00:09:20.299 the sources, and those sources highlight a very 00:09:20.299 --> 00:09:23.559 stark, polarized contrast in how this video was 00:09:23.559 --> 00:09:26.559 received. Right. On the side of praise, reviewers 00:09:26.559 --> 00:09:29.820 like MTV's James Montgomery lauded Perry for 00:09:29.820 --> 00:09:31.960 her genuine commitment to the bet. He had a good 00:09:31.960 --> 00:09:33.960 point about the contrast with other artists. 00:09:34.340 --> 00:09:36.139 Yeah, he pointed out that while contemporaries 00:09:36.139 --> 00:09:38.220 like Rihanna had done what he called military 00:09:38.220 --> 00:09:40.860 chic. Right, like straddling a tank in her video 00:09:40.860 --> 00:09:43.779 for heart. Exactly. Perry actually eschewed makeup, 00:09:43.980 --> 00:09:46.559 cut her hair, fought, crawled, and suffered on 00:09:46.559 --> 00:09:50.039 camera. Yeah. So to many critics and fans, it 00:09:50.039 --> 00:09:52.360 was seen as the ultimate girl power message, 00:09:52.539 --> 00:09:55.379 praising her for showcasing a gritty physical 00:09:55.379 --> 00:09:57.950 resilience. But on the other side of the spectrum, 00:09:58.169 --> 00:10:01.330 the video faced severe backlash. It really did. 00:10:01.509 --> 00:10:04.250 Feminist author Naomi Wolf was highly critical. 00:10:04.509 --> 00:10:07.129 She publicly denounced the video as truly shameful 00:10:07.129 --> 00:10:10.090 military propaganda. Wow. Wolf even suggested 00:10:10.090 --> 00:10:12.490 a boycott of Perry, stating that she was deeply 00:10:12.490 --> 00:10:15.009 offended by what she saw as a glorification of 00:10:15.009 --> 00:10:17.250 violence, and she even questioned if the military 00:10:17.250 --> 00:10:20.250 had paid Perry to make it. That is a heavy accusation. 00:10:20.350 --> 00:10:23.240 It is. You have to wonder how Perry and her team 00:10:23.240 --> 00:10:26.519 felt reading those comments, seeing a pop video 00:10:26.519 --> 00:10:29.440 suddenly at the center of a massive debate about 00:10:29.440 --> 00:10:31.919 the military -industrial complex. Right. And 00:10:31.919 --> 00:10:34.980 to counter Wolf's criticisms, the sources detail 00:10:34.980 --> 00:10:37.720 the defense of the video, which came from publicist 00:10:37.720 --> 00:10:40.120 Glenn Selig. What did he say? He argued that 00:10:40.120 --> 00:10:42.639 Wolf's call for a boycott actually just brought 00:10:42.639 --> 00:10:45.179 more attention to the video. True. He stated 00:10:45.179 --> 00:10:47.580 that without Wolf's comments, most people would 00:10:47.580 --> 00:10:50.139 have simply viewed the military imagery as a 00:10:50.139 --> 00:10:52.870 metaphor for personal strength rather than an 00:10:52.870 --> 00:10:55.669 attempt to glamorize war or monger violence that 00:10:55.669 --> 00:10:59.190 makes sense and perry herself addressed the creative 00:10:59.190 --> 00:11:01.830 choice stating that the song is an affirmation 00:11:01.830 --> 00:11:04.440 of strength So she wanted to go, in her words, 00:11:04.559 --> 00:11:07.200 the strongest route she ever could to represent 00:11:07.200 --> 00:11:09.820 it visually. It's a perfect example of how visual 00:11:09.820 --> 00:11:13.360 imagery and pop music is entirely open to interpretation. 00:11:13.700 --> 00:11:15.860 Absolutely. And how visual choices can completely 00:11:15.860 --> 00:11:18.899 recontextualize an audio track. As a listener, 00:11:18.980 --> 00:11:21.500 you're left to weigh both sides. Does adopting 00:11:21.500 --> 00:11:25.139 military aesthetics inherently endorse militarism? 00:11:25.279 --> 00:11:28.000 Or can it be cleanly separated as a theatrical 00:11:28.000 --> 00:11:30.600 metaphor for surviving a broken heart? It's a 00:11:30.600 --> 00:11:34.279 really heavy debate. But regardless of the controversy 00:11:34.279 --> 00:11:36.740 over the video, the commercial achievements of 00:11:36.740 --> 00:11:39.580 Part of Me were staggering. Oh, yeah. Undeniable. 00:11:39.700 --> 00:11:42.480 The song debuted at number one on the Billboard 00:11:42.480 --> 00:11:46.159 Hot 100. Let's put that in context. That is incredibly 00:11:46.159 --> 00:11:48.980 rare. Very rare. It was only the 20th song in 00:11:48.980 --> 00:11:51.159 the entire history of the Billboard chart to 00:11:51.159 --> 00:11:53.279 debut at the very top. That is a massive achievement. 00:11:53.519 --> 00:11:56.639 It sold 411 ,000 copies in its first week in 00:11:56.639 --> 00:11:59.399 the U .S. alone. It also reached number one in 00:11:59.399 --> 00:12:03.080 the U .K. Canada, and New Zealand. And eventually 00:12:03.080 --> 00:12:05.820 it was certified 5x platinum in the United States. 00:12:06.019 --> 00:12:08.259 And just to clarify for those who might not track 00:12:08.259 --> 00:12:10.799 industry metrics, reaching 5x platinum means 00:12:10.799 --> 00:12:13.480 the song moved over 5 million equivalent units 00:12:13.480 --> 00:12:16.100 in the U .S. That is just huge. Commercially, 00:12:16.179 --> 00:12:18.600 it was an absolute juggernaut. But we do have 00:12:18.600 --> 00:12:20.580 to balance those sales with the critical reception 00:12:20.580 --> 00:12:22.779 of the song itself, which was surprisingly mixed. 00:12:22.940 --> 00:12:26.419 Yeah. The AV Club gave it a B +, calling it sticky, 00:12:26.559 --> 00:12:29.220 but noting it felt like a chintzier 2012 version 00:12:29.220 --> 00:12:32.419 of Kelly Clarkson's Since You Been Gone. Rolling 00:12:32.419 --> 00:12:34.399 Stone was less impressed, calling it just plain 00:12:34.399 --> 00:12:38.720 predictable. Meanwhile... NME. Oh, boy. Which, 00:12:38.820 --> 00:12:41.460 if you know British music journalism, is notoriously 00:12:41.460 --> 00:12:45.019 harsh. They heavily criticized her vocals, referring 00:12:45.019 --> 00:12:48.220 to her delivery as a strange, angry robot voice. 00:12:48.480 --> 00:12:52.039 An angry robot voice. That is brutal. And the 00:12:52.039 --> 00:12:54.039 critiques didn't just come from music magazines 00:12:54.039 --> 00:12:56.360 analyzing the sound. Right. The Christian group 00:12:56.360 --> 00:12:58.820 Focus on the Family actually chimed in. They 00:12:58.820 --> 00:13:01.840 criticized the upbeat pop framing of what they 00:13:01.840 --> 00:13:03.559 viewed as the demolition of a marital covenant. 00:13:03.759 --> 00:13:06.129 Which is such a fascinating critique. you think 00:13:06.129 --> 00:13:08.250 about it. It really is. They were arguing that 00:13:08.250 --> 00:13:10.769 wrapping a divorce in these cathartic, pulsing 00:13:10.769 --> 00:13:13.509 beats, courtesy of Max Martin and Dr. Luke, put 00:13:13.509 --> 00:13:16.889 a surprisingly upbeat spin on a very somber reality. 00:13:17.289 --> 00:13:19.629 Yeah. It perfectly illustrates the disconnect 00:13:19.629 --> 00:13:22.049 between how Perry wrote it. As a general post 00:13:22.049 --> 00:13:24.389 -breakup empowerment anthem. Exactly. And how 00:13:24.389 --> 00:13:26.850 the world consumed it, viewing it strictly through 00:13:26.850 --> 00:13:29.870 the lens of her marriage ending. Totally. Now, 00:13:29.950 --> 00:13:33.250 to promote a hit this culturally saturated, the 00:13:33.250 --> 00:13:37.360 live spectacles had to be grand. And Perry definitely 00:13:37.360 --> 00:13:39.639 delivered on the theatrics. She always does. 00:13:39.899 --> 00:13:43.039 At the 54th Grammy Awards, she started her performance 00:13:43.039 --> 00:13:45.919 with her song E .T. before faking a technical 00:13:45.919 --> 00:13:48.279 glitch. Oh, I remember this. The lights went 00:13:48.279 --> 00:13:51.200 out, the sound cut off, and then a blue -haired 00:13:51.200 --> 00:13:53.649 Perry. who turned out to be a body double. Right. 00:13:53.870 --> 00:13:56.190 She descended from the roof in a transparent 00:13:56.190 --> 00:13:59.269 glass cube. She shattered the cube, fireworks 00:13:59.269 --> 00:14:01.970 exploded everywhere, and the real Perry launched 00:14:01.970 --> 00:14:04.610 into part of me, wearing a metallic bodysuit 00:14:04.610 --> 00:14:07.330 that looked like golden armor. Incredible. Later 00:14:07.330 --> 00:14:09.590 on American Idol, she pre -taped a performance 00:14:09.590 --> 00:14:12.529 where she simulated an airdrop onto a military 00:14:12.529 --> 00:14:15.610 base surrounded by female dancers in full military 00:14:15.610 --> 00:14:18.590 gear. The theatricality was dialed up to 11 because 00:14:18.590 --> 00:14:20.450 they were selling that unbreakable narrative 00:14:20.450 --> 00:14:22.809 as hard as possible. Yeah. And you can't talk 00:14:22.809 --> 00:14:25.210 about a 2012 pop hit without acknowledging the 00:14:25.210 --> 00:14:27.769 extreme corporate synergy happening in the background. 00:14:27.929 --> 00:14:29.429 How the marketing was everywhere. It was operating 00:14:29.429 --> 00:14:32.690 at maximum capacity. Perry licensed the song 00:14:32.690 --> 00:14:36.409 to the Sims 3 Showtime expansion. pack. I forgot 00:14:36.409 --> 00:14:39.110 about that. She even filmed a commercial performing 00:14:39.110 --> 00:14:42.129 as a sim version of herself. Think about the 00:14:42.129 --> 00:14:44.009 absurdity of that for a second. It is pretty 00:14:44.009 --> 00:14:46.649 absurd. A song the public thinks is about a painful 00:14:46.649 --> 00:14:49.330 real life divorce being sung by a digital avatar 00:14:49.330 --> 00:14:52.110 to sell a video game. It really highlights the 00:14:52.110 --> 00:14:54.710 business machine behind pop music. Definitely. 00:14:55.070 --> 00:14:58.049 She also signed a global deal with Pepsi for 00:14:58.049 --> 00:15:00.830 their Live for Now campaign, which featured the 00:15:00.830 --> 00:15:03.889 song. It was added as downloadable content for 00:15:03.889 --> 00:15:06.409 the Just Dance video game series. Right. And 00:15:06.409 --> 00:15:09.750 of course, it was tied directly to her 3D autobiographical 00:15:09.750 --> 00:15:12.529 documentary concert film, which was literally 00:15:12.529 --> 00:15:15.590 titled Katy Perry Part of Me. Synergy at its 00:15:15.590 --> 00:15:17.889 finest. During the movie's premiere on Hollywood 00:15:17.889 --> 00:15:21.210 Boulevard, she emerged from a giant box of popcorn 00:15:21.210 --> 00:15:24.129 to perform the track. It's the ultimate pop music 00:15:24.129 --> 00:15:26.659 whiplash. The track is doing all these things 00:15:26.659 --> 00:15:29.159 at once, selling soda, selling video games, selling 00:15:29.159 --> 00:15:32.080 movie tickets, and supposedly serving as a deeply 00:15:32.080 --> 00:15:34.960 personal diary entry. So what does this all mean 00:15:34.960 --> 00:15:37.679 for us as listeners? When we trace the entire 00:15:37.679 --> 00:15:40.559 journey of Part of Me, we see how a song's meaning 00:15:40.559 --> 00:15:43.960 naturally evolves over time. It's true. It started 00:15:43.960 --> 00:15:47.320 in a studio in 2010 as a private session about 00:15:47.320 --> 00:15:50.539 a generic breakup. Then, through internet leaks 00:15:50.539 --> 00:15:54.120 and intense public speculation in 2012, It became 00:15:54.120 --> 00:15:56.879 a highly scrutinized commentary on her high profile 00:15:56.879 --> 00:16:00.419 divorce. Then through its music video, it became 00:16:00.419 --> 00:16:03.100 a literal depiction of military resilience and 00:16:03.100 --> 00:16:06.039 sparked national debates about propaganda. And 00:16:06.039 --> 00:16:09.240 evolution didn't stop there. There is one final, 00:16:09.419 --> 00:16:12.139 incredibly poignant detail from the source material 00:16:12.139 --> 00:16:13.919 that highlights this perfectly. What's that? 00:16:14.120 --> 00:16:17.779 In June 2017, Katy Perry performed an acoustic 00:16:17.779 --> 00:16:20.779 rendition of Part of Me at the One Love Manchester 00:16:20.779 --> 00:16:23.360 benefit concert. Wow. Which was held for the 00:16:23.360 --> 00:16:25.860 victims of the arena bombing. Imagine that setting. 00:16:26.019 --> 00:16:28.620 Yeah. In that context, stripped of the booming 00:16:28.620 --> 00:16:30.840 house beat, stripped of the military visuals, 00:16:30.980 --> 00:16:33.820 and far removed from the divorce gossip, the 00:16:33.820 --> 00:16:36.419 song transformed once again. It gives me chills. 00:16:36.600 --> 00:16:38.919 It became an anthem of collective healing. It 00:16:38.919 --> 00:16:41.379 became a shared vow of survival for a grieving 00:16:41.379 --> 00:16:43.720 city. That is incredibly powerful. It really 00:16:43.720 --> 00:16:45.159 makes you think about your own favorite songs. 00:16:45.379 --> 00:16:47.279 If you've ever had a song you listen to when 00:16:47.279 --> 00:16:49.399 you're going through a hard time, think about 00:16:49.399 --> 00:16:51.480 how your relationship with those lyrics has changed 00:16:51.480 --> 00:16:52.980 based on what you've gone through in your own 00:16:52.980 --> 00:16:56.639 life. Yeah. Ten years later, the same words can 00:16:56.639 --> 00:17:00.139 mean something entirely different. Music isn't 00:17:00.139 --> 00:17:03.259 static. It isn't. And that leaves us with a fascinating 00:17:03.259 --> 00:17:06.269 question to mull over. Okay. We've seen how this 00:17:06.269 --> 00:17:09.690 single song seamlessly morphed from a pop session 00:17:09.690 --> 00:17:13.869 about a breakup to a multi -million dollar corporate 00:17:13.869 --> 00:17:17.349 brand synergy tool for Pepsi to our rallying 00:17:17.349 --> 00:17:20.869 cry for a devastated community. Right. So does 00:17:20.869 --> 00:17:23.410 a pop song actually have a fixed identity at 00:17:23.410 --> 00:17:26.490 all? Or is a great pop song simply a beautifully 00:17:26.490 --> 00:17:29.529 crafted empty vessel that... All the listeners. 00:17:29.750 --> 00:17:31.930 Exactly. That we, the listeners and the culture 00:17:31.930 --> 00:17:34.349 at large are constantly filling with our own 00:17:34.349 --> 00:17:36.630 meaning. That is an incredible thought to end 00:17:36.630 --> 00:17:38.589 on. Thank you so much for joining us on this 00:17:38.589 --> 00:17:40.750 deep dive into the history and evolution of Katy 00:17:40.750 --> 00:17:42.869 Perry's part of me. It's been great. We hope 00:17:42.869 --> 00:17:45.309 you found some unexpected moments today. Until 00:17:45.309 --> 00:17:47.710 next time, keep questioning the media you consume 00:17:47.710 --> 00:17:49.250 and keep listening closely.