WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.980 Imagine releasing the most successful, highest 00:00:03.980 --> 00:00:06.379 -charting project of your entire career. You 00:00:06.379 --> 00:00:08.720 pour your absolute soul into it, you send it 00:00:08.720 --> 00:00:12.259 out into the world, and half the people who review 00:00:12.259 --> 00:00:14.320 it basically call it a soundtrack to general 00:00:14.320 --> 00:00:18.109 misery. Oh, wow. Yeah, that is rough. It really 00:00:18.109 --> 00:00:20.329 is, and that is the exact paradox we are stepping 00:00:20.329 --> 00:00:22.489 into today. We are not just looking at a standard 00:00:22.489 --> 00:00:24.989 album release. I mean, we are looking at an artist 00:00:24.989 --> 00:00:28.449 who basically handed the music press a mirror 00:00:28.449 --> 00:00:31.449 and just watched the reflection completely shatter. 00:00:31.589 --> 00:00:33.770 Yeah, I mean, it's the hallmark of truly dangerous 00:00:33.770 --> 00:00:36.030 art, you know? Yeah. When you create something 00:00:36.030 --> 00:00:38.990 that refuses to be just background noise, you 00:00:38.990 --> 00:00:41.270 force a reaction. Exactly. And sometimes that 00:00:41.270 --> 00:00:44.210 reaction is awe, and sometimes it's just absolute 00:00:44.210 --> 00:00:47.259 flat -out rejection. Welcome to today's Deep 00:00:47.259 --> 00:00:49.500 Dive, everyone. We are immersing ourselves in 00:00:49.500 --> 00:00:51.719 the source material today, which is a Wikipedia 00:00:51.719 --> 00:00:54.219 article detailing a deeply fascinating moment 00:00:54.219 --> 00:00:57.259 in music history. It's the 2014 album What Is 00:00:57.259 --> 00:01:00.259 This Heart? by the musical act How to Dress Well. 00:01:00.429 --> 00:01:02.549 Yeah. And for those who don't know, this is the 00:01:02.549 --> 00:01:04.930 third studio album from the American musician, 00:01:05.150 --> 00:01:07.469 Tom Krell, recording under that moniker. Right. 00:01:07.489 --> 00:01:12.109 And it was released on June 23, 2014 via Weird 00:01:12.109 --> 00:01:14.510 World. Which is an imprint of the Domino recording 00:01:14.510 --> 00:01:16.790 label, yeah. Exactly. So we have an established 00:01:16.790 --> 00:01:20.409 artist, a major indie label, and this piece of 00:01:20.409 --> 00:01:23.790 art that somehow managed to peak at number 145 00:01:23.790 --> 00:01:26.349 on the Billboard 200. Which is huge. It's huge. 00:01:26.829 --> 00:01:29.569 But while doing that, it simultaneously created 00:01:29.569 --> 00:01:32.650 an absolute fault line in music criticism. It 00:01:32.650 --> 00:01:35.489 really did. The divergence in the critical reception 00:01:35.489 --> 00:01:38.909 is staggering. You have respected publications 00:01:38.909 --> 00:01:41.150 calling it this work of eternal transparency. 00:01:41.209 --> 00:01:43.370 Right. And then others treat it like it's some 00:01:43.370 --> 00:01:45.969 sort of endurance test of emotional torment. 00:01:46.140 --> 00:01:48.959 And that kind of split doesn't happen by accident. 00:01:49.219 --> 00:01:50.980 OK, let's unpack this, because before we can 00:01:50.980 --> 00:01:53.560 even talk about the music itself, or the wild 00:01:53.560 --> 00:01:55.900 reactions it provoked, we have to look at how 00:01:55.900 --> 00:01:57.840 this artist introduces the project before you 00:01:57.840 --> 00:02:00.260 even hit play. Oh, the title. Yes, we have to 00:02:00.260 --> 00:02:02.000 talk about the typography of the album's title, 00:02:02.000 --> 00:02:04.640 because it is so incredibly deliberate. In the 00:02:04.640 --> 00:02:07.640 source material, there's a tweet from Krell himself 00:02:07.640 --> 00:02:10.060 explaining exactly how the title is supposed 00:02:10.060 --> 00:02:12.599 to be stylized. Right, yeah. He wrote, quote, 00:02:12.759 --> 00:02:16.159 my new album is called What Is This Heart? Just 00:02:16.159 --> 00:02:18.520 like that, in quotes, like a spoken question. 00:02:18.939 --> 00:02:21.819 What's fascinating here is the demand for emotional 00:02:21.819 --> 00:02:24.800 labor that's just embedded in that punctuation. 00:02:25.000 --> 00:02:28.039 Oh, interesting. How so? Well, by putting the 00:02:28.039 --> 00:02:30.400 title in quotation marks, Krell is not giving 00:02:30.400 --> 00:02:33.879 you a label. He is documenting an out loud utterance. 00:02:33.919 --> 00:02:37.060 Wow, yeah. He's framing the entire you know, 00:02:37.219 --> 00:02:40.360 55 -minute album as a real -time crisis. It's 00:02:40.360 --> 00:02:43.240 like walking into a crowded networking event, 00:02:43.340 --> 00:02:45.439 and instead of wearing a standard name tag that 00:02:45.439 --> 00:02:47.699 says, you know, hi, I'm Tom, you wear a name 00:02:47.699 --> 00:02:50.500 tag that says, am I a good person? Yes. Exactly. 00:02:50.580 --> 00:02:52.800 You aren't giving the other person a neat category 00:02:52.800 --> 00:02:55.879 to place you in. You are forcing the person looking 00:02:55.879 --> 00:02:58.580 at you to actively engage with your internal 00:02:58.580 --> 00:03:01.280 monologue. I mean, this is a startling inquiry. 00:03:01.620 --> 00:03:03.699 I would actually take that analogy a step further, 00:03:03.819 --> 00:03:06.139 honestly. Because it isn't just startling, right? 00:03:06.680 --> 00:03:10.319 It's an invitation to participate in his confusion. 00:03:11.099 --> 00:03:15.780 A question like, what is this heart? Inherently 00:03:15.780 --> 00:03:18.419 implies that the speaker does not have the answer. 00:03:18.719 --> 00:03:21.500 Right. He's asking us. Exactly. It completely 00:03:21.500 --> 00:03:24.219 strips away the traditional armor of the pop 00:03:24.219 --> 00:03:25.599 star. Like the pop star is supposed to have it 00:03:25.599 --> 00:03:28.000 all figured out, you know. They deliver the polished 00:03:28.000 --> 00:03:30.939 anthem. Yeah, the catchy hook. But Krell is saying, 00:03:31.199 --> 00:03:33.439 I am overwhelmed. I don't know what this feeling 00:03:33.439 --> 00:03:36.810 is. And by pressing play on this album, You are 00:03:36.810 --> 00:03:38.930 agreeing to help me figure it out. But, you know, 00:03:38.949 --> 00:03:41.289 you don't just ask a profound question like that 00:03:41.289 --> 00:03:43.229 in a vacuum. Oh, definitely not. You have to 00:03:43.229 --> 00:03:45.650 score it. You have to build a sonic environment 00:03:45.650 --> 00:03:48.150 that actually matches the weight of that punctuation. 00:03:48.189 --> 00:03:50.750 Right. And looking at the genres associated with 00:03:50.750 --> 00:03:52.669 this album, the article, the musical landscape 00:03:52.669 --> 00:03:56.169 is incredibly chaotic. The text categorizes this 00:03:56.169 --> 00:04:00.060 project as. alternative R &B, experimental, ambient, 00:04:00.400 --> 00:04:03.280 lo -fi, and experimental pop. It's just a massive 00:04:03.280 --> 00:04:05.500 collision of sonic philosophies. You have genres 00:04:05.500 --> 00:04:08.639 that fundamentally serve entirely different purposes, 00:04:09.159 --> 00:04:11.280 all fighting for space on the exact same track. 00:04:11.580 --> 00:04:13.520 And this is where I really have to push back 00:04:13.520 --> 00:04:16.160 a little, or at least admit my own confusion 00:04:16.160 --> 00:04:19.120 here. OK, go for it. How can a piece of music 00:04:19.120 --> 00:04:23.350 simultaneously be pop? Which to me implies mass 00:04:23.350 --> 00:04:27.110 appeal, highly engineered, catchy vocal hooks 00:04:27.110 --> 00:04:29.529 designed to get stuck in your head. Right, the 00:04:29.529 --> 00:04:33.889 earworm. Exactly. How can it be that? and ambient 00:04:33.889 --> 00:04:37.430 or lo -fi at the same time, because ambient music 00:04:37.430 --> 00:04:40.310 is specifically designed to be atmospheric, right, 00:04:40.310 --> 00:04:42.370 to blend into the background. Yeah, Brian Eno 00:04:42.370 --> 00:04:45.910 style, exactly. Right. And lo -fi implies a gritty, 00:04:46.250 --> 00:04:49.209 unpolished, almost amateurish sound quality. 00:04:49.350 --> 00:04:51.529 Aren't those concepts mutually exclusive? I mean, 00:04:51.589 --> 00:04:53.970 you cannot be trying to grab my attention with 00:04:53.970 --> 00:04:56.449 a pop hook and actively trying to blend into 00:04:56.449 --> 00:04:58.370 the background at the exact same time. Well, 00:04:58.430 --> 00:05:00.290 mechanically, they are mutually exclusive, which 00:05:00.290 --> 00:05:03.269 is exactly why blending them creates such visceral 00:05:03.269 --> 00:05:05.529 discomfort for a listener. Oh, so it's intentional 00:05:05.529 --> 00:05:08.089 discomfort. Precisely. The producers on this 00:05:08.089 --> 00:05:11.269 album, Rodade McDonald, along with the electronic 00:05:11.269 --> 00:05:14.050 artist, CFCF. Oh, right. They co -wrote and co 00:05:14.050 --> 00:05:16.829 -produced the tracks of Power and What You Wanted. 00:05:17.050 --> 00:05:20.509 Yes, exactly. They use acoustic friction as an 00:05:20.509 --> 00:05:22.449 actual psychological tool. How do they do that? 00:05:22.910 --> 00:05:26.389 They achieve this by taking a pristine, catchy, 00:05:26.670 --> 00:05:29.189 pop... vocal -like, the kind of melody your brain 00:05:29.189 --> 00:05:31.290 immediately recognizes and wants to latch onto. 00:05:31.550 --> 00:05:33.850 Right. And then they bury it under layers of 00:05:33.850 --> 00:05:36.550 distorted synthesizer and heavy reverb. So they're 00:05:36.550 --> 00:05:39.550 intentionally obscuring the most accessible part 00:05:39.550 --> 00:05:41.829 of the song. Precisely. Yeah. Your brain recognizes 00:05:41.829 --> 00:05:44.269 the pot structure. It really wants the dopamine 00:05:44.269 --> 00:05:46.949 hit of that clean repetitive hook. Yeah. But 00:05:46.949 --> 00:05:49.879 the ambient fuzz in the lo -fi grit... obscure 00:05:49.879 --> 00:05:53.740 it. It physically forces you, the listener, to 00:05:53.740 --> 00:05:56.379 strain your ears to hear the emotion. Wow. It's 00:05:56.379 --> 00:05:58.839 an acoustic manipulation that mimics the actual 00:05:58.839 --> 00:06:01.699 real -world effort it takes to understand someone 00:06:01.699 --> 00:06:03.579 who's emotionally overwhelmed. Yeah. To someone 00:06:03.579 --> 00:06:05.639 having trouble articulating their feelings. Oh, 00:06:05.639 --> 00:06:08.259 wow. So the sound waves themselves are mimicking 00:06:08.259 --> 00:06:10.319 the feeling of an emotional breakdown. Yeah, 00:06:10.379 --> 00:06:13.079 exactly. It isn't just a stylistic choice to 00:06:13.079 --> 00:06:16.100 like... sound cool or edgy. It is a physical 00:06:16.100 --> 00:06:18.579 manifestation of the album's title. Heartbreak 00:06:18.579 --> 00:06:21.540 isn't just one sharp, easily identifiable pain 00:06:21.540 --> 00:06:24.779 like a clean pop vocal. It's also this dull, 00:06:25.399 --> 00:06:28.579 lingering, confusing fog like an ambient drone. 00:06:29.160 --> 00:06:31.220 And Krell is essentially forcing you to sit in 00:06:31.220 --> 00:06:34.199 that fog. He's using artists like CFCF, who are 00:06:34.199 --> 00:06:37.180 really known for building highly immersive, layered 00:06:37.180 --> 00:06:40.379 electronic worlds, to construct a landscape where 00:06:40.379 --> 00:06:43.810 clarity is just constantly denied. that feeling 00:06:43.810 --> 00:06:45.870 of your brain being pulled in two different directions 00:06:45.870 --> 00:06:48.050 by the production, it isn't just in the sound 00:06:48.050 --> 00:06:50.810 either. He actually maps that out for us structurally 00:06:50.810 --> 00:06:53.129 in the track list. Yeah, some track list is fascinating. 00:06:53.230 --> 00:06:55.529 The album runs exactly 55 minutes in one second, 00:06:55.649 --> 00:06:58.029 and it's spread across 12 tracks. And these track 00:06:58.029 --> 00:07:00.819 titles, they read like... deeply conflicted poetry. 00:07:00.839 --> 00:07:03.000 They really do. We have track one, two years 00:07:03.000 --> 00:07:05.500 on, and then in parentheses, shame dream. We 00:07:05.500 --> 00:07:08.720 have track nine, childhood faith and love, parenthetical, 00:07:09.040 --> 00:07:10.459 everything must change, everything must stay 00:07:10.459 --> 00:07:13.420 the same. Right. And the closer, track 12, house 00:07:13.420 --> 00:07:15.839 inside, parenthetical, future is older than the 00:07:15.839 --> 00:07:18.930 past. The heavy reliance on parentheticals just 00:07:18.930 --> 00:07:21.649 jumps right off the screen. I mean, it is a very 00:07:21.649 --> 00:07:25.350 specific, highly unusual way to format a track 00:07:25.350 --> 00:07:27.790 list. Here's where it gets really interesting. 00:07:28.170 --> 00:07:31.189 Almost every major emotional pivot on this album 00:07:31.189 --> 00:07:34.990 utilizes those brackets in the title. To me, 00:07:35.069 --> 00:07:37.569 it feels like this is Krell's way of holding 00:07:37.569 --> 00:07:39.810 two completely conflicting thoughts at exactly 00:07:39.810 --> 00:07:42.029 the same time. Oh, absolutely. The main title 00:07:42.029 --> 00:07:44.790 is The Conscious Mind Trying to Establish a Fact, 00:07:45.149 --> 00:07:47.189 and the parentheticals is the subconscious mind 00:07:47.189 --> 00:07:49.569 whispering this terrifying contradiction right 00:07:49.569 --> 00:07:51.730 next to it. Right, right. Take track nine, you 00:07:51.730 --> 00:07:53.790 know, childhood faith and love, and then the 00:07:53.790 --> 00:07:55.970 brackets, everything must change, everything 00:07:55.970 --> 00:07:58.149 must stay the same. If we connect this to the 00:07:58.149 --> 00:08:00.829 bigger picture, analyzing a title like Future 00:08:00.829 --> 00:08:04.110 is Older than the Past really reveals a profound 00:08:04.110 --> 00:08:06.990 internal struggle with how human beings process 00:08:06.990 --> 00:08:09.649 time and trauma. Yeah, tell me more about that. 00:08:09.850 --> 00:08:11.449 Well, normally we think of the past as old and 00:08:11.449 --> 00:08:13.709 the future as new and unwritten, right? Standard 00:08:13.709 --> 00:08:16.629 linear time. But when someone is grappling with 00:08:16.629 --> 00:08:19.769 deep emotional baggage, the psychology flips. 00:08:20.529 --> 00:08:22.990 The events of the past feel incredibly present 00:08:22.990 --> 00:08:25.910 and heavy. Oh, wow. While the concept of a future 00:08:25.910 --> 00:08:29.040 feels exhausted. tired and somehow already weighed 00:08:29.040 --> 00:08:31.759 down by history. That's incredible. Yeah, the 00:08:31.759 --> 00:08:34.480 track list is literally charting a roadmap of 00:08:34.480 --> 00:08:36.919 a mind that is divided against itself. Which 00:08:36.919 --> 00:08:39.200 brings us to a really critical juncture in this 00:08:39.200 --> 00:08:41.820 deep dive, because when you build a monument 00:08:41.820 --> 00:08:44.379 to your own internal division like this, when 00:08:44.379 --> 00:08:47.240 you broadcast this intense vulnerability through 00:08:47.240 --> 00:08:50.399 your title, your genre bending sound and your 00:08:50.399 --> 00:08:52.860 deeply psychological track list, and then you 00:08:52.860 --> 00:08:55.820 put it out on a major indie label for mass consumption, 00:08:55.899 --> 00:08:58.490 you surrender. all control over how people interpret 00:08:58.490 --> 00:09:01.049 it. Exactly. The moment the art leaves the studio, 00:09:01.230 --> 00:09:03.450 it belongs to the audience. And the audience 00:09:03.450 --> 00:09:06.289 for this album was severely fractured. That is 00:09:06.289 --> 00:09:08.590 an understatement. Right. The album holds an 00:09:08.590 --> 00:09:12.210 aggregate Metacritic score of 69 out of 100 based 00:09:12.210 --> 00:09:15.269 on 32 critics. Now Metacritic technically defines 00:09:15.269 --> 00:09:18.029 that range as indicating generally favorable 00:09:18.029 --> 00:09:21.250 reviews. Sure, technically. You know, an audience 00:09:21.250 --> 00:09:23.350 of our caliber knows that an aggregate score 00:09:23.350 --> 00:09:25.909 of 69 rarely means everyone just thought the 00:09:25.909 --> 00:09:28.909 album was fine. No, not at all. Usually a score 00:09:28.909 --> 00:09:31.629 hovering right below the 70s signifies a piece 00:09:31.629 --> 00:09:35.169 of media that is either deeply flawed or dangerously 00:09:35.169 --> 00:09:38.250 innovative. It means you have a wild spread of 00:09:38.250 --> 00:09:41.250 polarized opinions. Yeah, a 69 in cultural criticism 00:09:41.250 --> 00:09:43.870 is almost always the hallmark of a cult classic. 00:09:43.929 --> 00:09:46.009 Oh, definitely. It means the artist took a swing 00:09:46.009 --> 00:09:49.230 so massive that it fundamentally alienated a 00:09:49.320 --> 00:09:51.899 of the room. Look at the extremes we have in 00:09:51.899 --> 00:09:55.480 the source material. NME gave it a middling 5 00:09:55.480 --> 00:09:58.080 out of 10. Right. The AV club initially slapped 00:09:58.080 --> 00:10:00.899 it with a C plus verge. Right. And the Guardian 00:10:00.899 --> 00:10:03.419 published a review that is almost legendary in 00:10:03.419 --> 00:10:06.340 its bluntness, literally calling the album a 00:10:06.340 --> 00:10:08.340 soundtrack to heartbreak and general misery. 00:10:08.620 --> 00:10:10.960 General misery. I mean, that's brutal. But then 00:10:10.960 --> 00:10:13.159 you look at the other side of the aisle, spin 00:10:13.159 --> 00:10:16.279 rated it a 7 out of 10, stating the artist, quote, 00:10:16.659 --> 00:10:20.559 opens a vein. bleeds turbulent R &B. Even the 00:10:20.559 --> 00:10:23.980 AV Club, in the text of their review, noted that 00:10:23.980 --> 00:10:27.559 how to dress well remains torn between pop escapism 00:10:27.559 --> 00:10:31.179 and emotional torment. General misery versus 00:10:31.179 --> 00:10:33.679 turbulent R &B. I mean, we are talking about 00:10:33.679 --> 00:10:37.220 vastly different sensory experiences of the exact 00:10:37.220 --> 00:10:40.399 same 55 minutes of audio. It's wild, and I want 00:10:40.399 --> 00:10:42.299 to turn this over to you listening right now. 00:10:42.700 --> 00:10:45.200 Have you ever poured your heart out to someone? 00:10:45.360 --> 00:10:47.279 Maybe you sat down with a friend or a partner 00:10:47.279 --> 00:10:50.980 and you completely laid yourself bare. It's terrifying. 00:10:51.139 --> 00:10:54.000 It is. You share your deepest, most confusing 00:10:54.000 --> 00:10:56.299 insecurities only to realize that the person 00:10:56.299 --> 00:10:59.419 sitting across from you fundamentally misunderstood 00:10:59.419 --> 00:11:01.000 what you were trying to say. Yeah. They thought 00:11:01.000 --> 00:11:03.200 you were just complaining or they tried to offer 00:11:03.200 --> 00:11:05.200 a quick fix when all you really wanted was for 00:11:05.200 --> 00:11:08.019 them to just, you know, sit in the fog with you. 00:11:08.259 --> 00:11:11.059 The isolation that stems from being vulnerable 00:11:11.059 --> 00:11:13.879 and then being misunderstood. is profound. It 00:11:13.879 --> 00:11:16.440 really makes you want to retreat and never share 00:11:16.440 --> 00:11:18.519 again. And that is exactly what this critical 00:11:18.519 --> 00:11:21.200 reception feels like on a macro scale. It seems 00:11:21.200 --> 00:11:23.080 like some of these music critics walked into 00:11:23.080 --> 00:11:26.259 this album wanting pure pop escapism. They wanted 00:11:26.259 --> 00:11:28.919 a distraction from their day. Right. And when 00:11:28.919 --> 00:11:31.840 Krell handed them complex emotional torment instead, 00:11:32.299 --> 00:11:34.500 they rejected the mirror he was holding up and 00:11:34.500 --> 00:11:38.720 simply labeled it misery. Art criticism is inherently 00:11:38.720 --> 00:11:42.740 subjective, obviously, but An album this nakedly 00:11:42.740 --> 00:11:46.000 emotional acts as a psychological litmus test 00:11:46.000 --> 00:11:48.360 for the listener. Oh, a litmus test. I like that. 00:11:48.500 --> 00:11:50.860 Yeah, if a critic listens to What Is This Heart? 00:11:51.100 --> 00:11:54.179 and immediately dismisses it as miserable, it 00:11:54.179 --> 00:11:57.899 often speaks to their own discomfort with unprocessed 00:11:57.899 --> 00:11:59.940 sadness. Wow, yeah. They are repelled by the 00:11:59.940 --> 00:12:03.159 reflection. The critics who praise the turbulence, 00:12:03.200 --> 00:12:05.500 however, are the ones who possess the emotional 00:12:05.500 --> 00:12:07.980 bandwidth to embrace the discomfort. Right. They 00:12:07.980 --> 00:12:09.759 weren't looking for a catchy distraction, you 00:12:09.759 --> 00:12:11.830 know? They were looking for resonance. But the 00:12:11.830 --> 00:12:14.409 beauty of putting something that vulnerable out 00:12:14.409 --> 00:12:17.169 into the world is that while you will inevitably 00:12:17.169 --> 00:12:20.230 alienate some people, you create a beacon for 00:12:20.230 --> 00:12:22.009 the people who actually speak your language. 00:12:22.789 --> 00:12:25.269 And there is one review in our source material 00:12:25.269 --> 00:12:27.750 that stands out because it seems to catch Krell's 00:12:27.750 --> 00:12:30.649 reflection perfectly. Oh, Ian Cohen's piece for 00:12:30.649 --> 00:12:34.389 Pitchfork. Yes. It is an absolute master class 00:12:34.389 --> 00:12:37.309 in understanding the artist's intent. Yeah. Cohen 00:12:37.309 --> 00:12:39.350 wrote the review for Pitchfork giving the album 00:12:39.340 --> 00:12:43.340 a glowing 8 .8 out of 10. And his analysis just 00:12:43.340 --> 00:12:46.200 cuts straight to the bone of why this album matters. 00:12:46.399 --> 00:12:49.779 It really does. He writes that modern discourse 00:12:49.779 --> 00:12:52.559 like the way we communicate as a society today 00:12:52.559 --> 00:12:55.940 seeks metaphorical blood, allowing people to 00:12:55.940 --> 00:12:58.120 disclose more than ever without actually revealing 00:12:58.120 --> 00:12:59.879 anything. Let's just sit with that for a second. 00:13:00.679 --> 00:13:03.120 Disclose more than ever without actually revealing 00:13:03.120 --> 00:13:05.700 anything. It's so good. That single sentence. 00:13:05.960 --> 00:13:08.480 perfectly diagnoses the modern social condition. 00:13:08.700 --> 00:13:10.720 It really does. I mean, think about how we operate 00:13:10.720 --> 00:13:13.240 on social media today. Cool for sure. We post 00:13:13.240 --> 00:13:15.840 dozens of photos of our vacations, our meals, 00:13:16.179 --> 00:13:18.740 the concerts we go to. We update our statuses. 00:13:18.779 --> 00:13:21.980 We share our locations. We are constantly disclosing 00:13:21.980 --> 00:13:25.340 an incredible, unprecedented amount of data about 00:13:25.340 --> 00:13:27.899 the logistics of our lives. Right, the logistics. 00:13:27.940 --> 00:13:30.360 We are offering up the metaphorical blood that 00:13:30.360 --> 00:13:32.909 the algorithms demand. But we can do all of that. 00:13:33.090 --> 00:13:35.850 We can be perceived by thousands of people every 00:13:35.850 --> 00:13:38.370 single day without ever actually revealing how 00:13:38.370 --> 00:13:41.250 we truly feel. Yeah. We give the illusion of 00:13:41.250 --> 00:13:44.090 intimacy without any of the actual stakes. And 00:13:44.090 --> 00:13:46.190 this raises an important question about the difference 00:13:46.190 --> 00:13:49.210 between performance and reality. Exactly. Cohen 00:13:49.210 --> 00:13:51.570 is distinguishing between the performance of 00:13:51.570 --> 00:13:55.830 vulnerability and actual risky unvarnished honesty. 00:13:56.190 --> 00:13:58.149 Right. Because society loves the performance. 00:13:58.289 --> 00:14:01.230 Yeah. We love reality TV arguments. We love carefully 00:14:01.230 --> 00:14:04.409 curated crying selfies. Those things are safe 00:14:04.409 --> 00:14:06.730 because they are controlled. Right. They're bounded. 00:14:06.970 --> 00:14:09.330 But true honesty, the kind that asks a messy 00:14:09.330 --> 00:14:11.769 question and refuses to provide a neat answer, 00:14:12.169 --> 00:14:14.250 is jarring. It demands something of the viewer. 00:14:14.710 --> 00:14:16.889 Cohen concludes his review by stating that Krell 00:14:16.889 --> 00:14:20.200 operates with eternal transparency. He writes, 00:14:20.840 --> 00:14:23.639 quote, Krell asks, what is this heart and lets 00:14:23.639 --> 00:14:26.840 you look right into his own. He frames this entire 00:14:26.840 --> 00:14:29.659 55 minute album, not as an exercise in misery, 00:14:29.980 --> 00:14:32.379 but as a radical act of defiance against shallow 00:14:32.379 --> 00:14:36.210 disclosure and undertaking that defiance. requires 00:14:36.210 --> 00:14:39.830 immense courage, honestly. 100%. To walk into 00:14:39.830 --> 00:14:42.029 a recording booth knowing that your work might 00:14:42.029 --> 00:14:44.570 be graded a C plus by someone who simply doesn't 00:14:44.570 --> 00:14:47.090 want to engage with it. Yeah. Or dismissed as 00:14:47.090 --> 00:14:49.169 a five out of 10 by someone looking for a dance 00:14:49.169 --> 00:14:52.129 track. To know all of that and still choose to 00:14:52.129 --> 00:14:55.629 bury your pub hooks in ambient noise and bracket 00:14:55.629 --> 00:14:58.289 your track titles with contradictory subconscious 00:14:58.289 --> 00:15:01.190 thoughts. Right. You do it because that eternal 00:15:01.190 --> 00:15:03.649 transparency is the only authentic way you know 00:15:03.649 --> 00:15:05.929 how to communicate. And it frames that Billboard 00:15:05.929 --> 00:15:09.409 200 peak at number 145 in an entirely new light. 00:15:09.509 --> 00:15:11.990 It really does. It isn't just a chart statistic 00:15:11.990 --> 00:15:16.090 anymore. It's a quiet, profound victory. It proves 00:15:16.090 --> 00:15:17.909 that there was an audience out there navigating 00:15:17.909 --> 00:15:21.649 the complexities of 2014 who recognized the hollowness 00:15:21.649 --> 00:15:23.870 of constant disclosure and desperately needed 00:15:23.870 --> 00:15:26.409 someone to ask that spoken question alongside 00:15:26.409 --> 00:15:29.269 them. It demonstrates that while absolute transparency 00:15:29.269 --> 00:15:31.769 might fracture your audience, it fundamentally 00:15:31.769 --> 00:15:33.850 bonds you to the people who are willing to look 00:15:33.850 --> 00:15:36.429 into the mirror with you. The people who stay 00:15:36.429 --> 00:15:39.240 are the ones who matter. We have covered a massive 00:15:39.240 --> 00:15:41.700 amount of ground today. We really have. We started 00:15:41.700 --> 00:15:44.840 with a cryptic, deliberately punctuated tweet. 00:15:45.480 --> 00:15:47.600 We navigated through the mechanical friction 00:15:47.600 --> 00:15:50.500 of blending ambience and pop genres. Wait, the 00:15:50.500 --> 00:15:53.340 sonic fog. Exactly. We dissected the psychology 00:15:53.340 --> 00:15:56.299 of parenthetical track titles and waded right 00:15:56.299 --> 00:15:59.000 through the middle of an incredibly polarizing 00:15:59.000 --> 00:16:01.419 critical divide. A complete journey from the 00:16:01.419 --> 00:16:04.399 typography of a title to the psychology of modern 00:16:04.399 --> 00:16:07.149 communication. So what does this all mean? If 00:16:07.149 --> 00:16:09.269 we strip away the billboard charts, the indie 00:16:09.269 --> 00:16:12.230 labels, and the metacritic scores, the core lesson 00:16:12.230 --> 00:16:14.950 we pull from today's sources is that true, honest 00:16:14.950 --> 00:16:18.110 expression is always a monumental risk. Absolutely 00:16:18.110 --> 00:16:21.529 always. Just as that 69 out of 100 aggregate 00:16:21.529 --> 00:16:24.350 score illustrates, putting your truest, most 00:16:24.350 --> 00:16:26.669 complicated self out into the world will almost 00:16:26.669 --> 00:16:29.509 never result in universal praise. No, it won't. 00:16:29.690 --> 00:16:31.289 Some people will look at your vulnerability, 00:16:31.610 --> 00:16:34.610 recoil, and label it misery. But others, the 00:16:34.610 --> 00:16:37.179 ones paying close attention, will recognize it 00:16:37.179 --> 00:16:39.960 as a masterpiece of eternal transparency. You 00:16:39.960 --> 00:16:42.519 cannot manage the reception of your truth. You 00:16:42.519 --> 00:16:44.720 can only maintain the integrity of the utterance. 00:16:45.039 --> 00:16:47.220 Which brings us back to the idea of the neatly 00:16:47.220 --> 00:16:49.220 wrapped package we often present to the world. 00:16:49.779 --> 00:16:52.840 It is so much easier to hand people a polished, 00:16:53.200 --> 00:16:55.659 easily digestible version of yourself. It is. 00:16:56.169 --> 00:16:58.309 But I want to leave you with a final thought 00:16:58.309 --> 00:17:00.570 to mull over as you go about the rest of your 00:17:00.570 --> 00:17:02.889 day or the next time you open an app on your 00:17:02.889 --> 00:17:06.089 phone. In a world that constantly demands our 00:17:06.089 --> 00:17:09.049 metaphorical blood, where we are heavily pressured 00:17:09.049 --> 00:17:12.269 to continuously share, post, and update our lives 00:17:12.269 --> 00:17:14.349 without ever really saying anything of substance, 00:17:15.109 --> 00:17:17.430 what would it actually look like for you to practice 00:17:17.430 --> 00:17:20.190 eternal transparency in your own life today? 00:17:20.589 --> 00:17:23.670 Are you simply disclosing data, or are you actually 00:17:23.670 --> 00:17:26.230 revealing yourself? Thank you so much for joining 00:17:26.230 --> 00:17:29.529 us on this deep dive. Stay curious, keep asking 00:17:29.529 --> 00:17:31.250 the difficult questions, and we will catch you 00:17:31.250 --> 00:17:31.789 next time.