WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:04.099 Imagine pairing the the innocent kind of giddy 00:00:04.099 --> 00:00:06.620 communal chanting of a high school cheer squad 00:00:06.620 --> 00:00:09.619 with some of the most brazen sexually direct 00:00:09.619 --> 00:00:12.580 lyrics in modern pop music. Oh, yeah. I mean, 00:00:12.740 --> 00:00:14.599 on paper, if you look at those two elements side 00:00:14.599 --> 00:00:18.579 by side, it's a recipe for a jarring, completely 00:00:18.579 --> 00:00:21.320 alienating disaster. Right. It really shouldn't 00:00:21.320 --> 00:00:24.239 work. But, you know, in 2019, a very specific 00:00:24.239 --> 00:00:27.100 alchemy of Production, vocal delivery, and just 00:00:27.100 --> 00:00:30.359 sheer artistic audacity turned that exact contradiction 00:00:30.359 --> 00:00:33.420 into a three -minute pop master class. It really 00:00:33.420 --> 00:00:36.060 is a perfect example of how the best pop music 00:00:36.060 --> 00:00:40.420 doesn't just happen by accident. It's meticulously 00:00:40.420 --> 00:00:42.979 engineered to basically bypass your logical brain 00:00:42.979 --> 00:00:45.619 and trigger an immediate physical response in 00:00:45.619 --> 00:00:47.320 your nervous system. And today, we're going to 00:00:47.320 --> 00:00:49.280 look at the exact mechanics of how that was achieved. 00:00:49.520 --> 00:00:51.619 Welcome to the Deep Dive. We are looking into 00:00:51.619 --> 00:00:54.520 Carly Rae Jepsen's 2019 single, Want You In My 00:00:54.520 --> 00:00:56.780 Room. Yeah, we've pulled together a comprehensive 00:00:56.780 --> 00:00:59.439 research stack today. It details the song's intricate 00:00:59.439 --> 00:01:02.920 production background, its highly polarized critical 00:01:02.920 --> 00:01:06.400 reception, the completely surreal dream logic 00:01:06.400 --> 00:01:08.590 music video that accompanied it. Which is wild, 00:01:08.750 --> 00:01:11.349 by the way. But our mission today is to deconstruct 00:01:11.349 --> 00:01:14.890 how this single compact synth pop track managed 00:01:14.890 --> 00:01:17.730 to capture massive critical acclaim from highbrow 00:01:17.730 --> 00:01:20.930 music journalists while also sparking this intense, 00:01:21.510 --> 00:01:24.150 enduring fan obsession. Exactly. We are going 00:01:24.150 --> 00:01:26.590 to figure out exactly what it teaches us about 00:01:26.590 --> 00:01:28.650 the architecture of pop music perfection. OK, 00:01:28.670 --> 00:01:31.810 let's unpack this. So. To really understand the 00:01:31.810 --> 00:01:34.349 impact of this track, we first have to strip 00:01:34.349 --> 00:01:36.469 away the cultural reaction, right? We need to 00:01:36.469 --> 00:01:38.629 look at the underlying sonic blueprint. Yeah, 00:01:38.650 --> 00:01:40.790 where did this actually start? Well, coming off 00:01:40.790 --> 00:01:43.209 the massive cult -like success of her previous 00:01:43.209 --> 00:01:46.409 work, expectations for Jepson were just incredibly 00:01:46.409 --> 00:01:49.829 high. Want You In My Room? Served as the sixth 00:01:49.829 --> 00:01:52.150 and final single from her fourth studio album, 00:01:52.250 --> 00:01:55.010 Dedicated. And that was released in May of 2019. 00:01:55.189 --> 00:01:58.129 Right, May 17, 2019. And a track like this is 00:01:58.129 --> 00:02:00.010 constructed layer by layer. The writing credits 00:02:00.010 --> 00:02:03.390 here go to Jepson, Tavish Crow, and Jack Antonoff. 00:02:03.670 --> 00:02:05.150 But what really stands out in the notes we're 00:02:05.150 --> 00:02:07.349 looking at is that Antonoff isn't just a co -writer. 00:02:07.450 --> 00:02:09.629 I mean, he is the sole producer on the track. 00:02:09.889 --> 00:02:13.750 He is. And his specific production choices are 00:02:13.750 --> 00:02:16.409 basically the engine of the whole song. Music 00:02:16.409 --> 00:02:19.949 critics continually pointed to Antonoff's scene 00:02:19.949 --> 00:02:21.930 -stealing production. Scene -stealing is a great 00:02:21.930 --> 00:02:24.629 way to put it. Right. It is fundamentally anchored 00:02:24.629 --> 00:02:29.830 as this euphoric 80s synth -laden track. It uses 00:02:29.830 --> 00:02:32.990 those warm analog sounding sawtooth synth waves 00:02:32.990 --> 00:02:35.530 that immediately signal nostalgia to our brains. 00:02:36.009 --> 00:02:38.310 But it isn't just a straight predictable homage 00:02:38.310 --> 00:02:41.569 to the 1980s, is it? No, not at all. Antonoff 00:02:41.569 --> 00:02:43.949 layered in elements that severely complicate 00:02:43.949 --> 00:02:46.400 the sound. For instance, right over those warm 00:02:46.400 --> 00:02:49.560 synths, the track features these very distinct, 00:02:49.840 --> 00:02:52.919 highly processed daft punk -like vocal effects. 00:02:52.979 --> 00:02:54.580 Wait, hold on. Let me stop you there because 00:02:54.580 --> 00:02:56.259 this is where the math doesn't seem to add up 00:02:56.259 --> 00:02:57.879 for me. What do you mean? Well, you have the 00:02:57.879 --> 00:03:00.280 foundational notes saying her core vocal performance 00:03:00.280 --> 00:03:02.479 references the early work of Cyndi Lauper. But 00:03:02.479 --> 00:03:04.719 then you're mixing that with daft punk robotic 00:03:04.719 --> 00:03:07.319 effects. Those are two completely opposite eras 00:03:07.319 --> 00:03:09.759 and emotional languages. I mean, Cyndi Lauper's 00:03:09.759 --> 00:03:12.840 whole vocal persona is about raw, unpolished, 00:03:12.979 --> 00:03:15.500 hard on your sleeve human emotion. exactly very 00:03:15.500 --> 00:03:19.319 expressive right and daft punk is literal robot 00:03:19.319 --> 00:03:21.960 anonymity it's compressed it's synthetic it's 00:03:21.960 --> 00:03:24.819 devoid of humanity how do those two extremes 00:03:24.819 --> 00:03:28.020 not just violently clash and ruin the track what's 00:03:28.020 --> 00:03:30.780 fascinating here is how that specific contradiction 00:03:30.780 --> 00:03:33.900 functions on a psychological level for the listener 00:03:33.900 --> 00:03:36.259 because you were entirely right that they are 00:03:36.259 --> 00:03:38.319 opposing forces they really are when you use 00:03:38.319 --> 00:03:41.770 a vocoder which Mathematically speaking, maps 00:03:41.770 --> 00:03:44.949 a human voice onto a synthesized frequency, you 00:03:44.949 --> 00:03:47.509 strip away the breathy human imperfections of 00:03:47.509 --> 00:03:50.330 the singer. OK, yeah. But by layering Jepson's 00:03:50.330 --> 00:03:53.250 incredibly expressive Lauper -esque lead vocal 00:03:53.250 --> 00:03:57.330 over that synthetic robotic choir, Antonov creates 00:03:57.330 --> 00:04:00.129 an anchor of intense humanity wrapped in this 00:04:00.129 --> 00:04:03.310 synthetic futuristic armor. Oh, wow. That's a 00:04:03.310 --> 00:04:05.349 cool way to look at it. Nostalgia lowers our 00:04:05.349 --> 00:04:07.449 defenses because the 80 synth sounds familiar, 00:04:07.689 --> 00:04:09.710 but the robotic vocal effects introduce an element 00:04:09.710 --> 00:04:12.349 of futuristic surprise. And then they add one 00:04:12.349 --> 00:04:14.610 more layer, which is this prominent Cheer Squad 00:04:14.610 --> 00:04:17.430 vibe. Yes. The Cheer Squad chant. It's highly 00:04:17.430 --> 00:04:20.129 rhythmic, it's communal, and it is entirely unpitched. 00:04:20.350 --> 00:04:22.800 Right. It's just raw energy. You have the sweeping 00:04:22.800 --> 00:04:26.240 melody, but underneath it there is this staccato, 00:04:26.439 --> 00:04:29.040 shout -heavy rhythm. It's like a musical time 00:04:29.040 --> 00:04:31.379 machine that somehow still sounds like the future. 00:04:31.439 --> 00:04:35.060 I love that analogy. You are writing in a retro 00:04:35.060 --> 00:04:38.759 80s DeLorean, but the engine is running on pure 00:04:38.759 --> 00:04:42.319 futuristic daft punk adrenaline, and it is being 00:04:42.319 --> 00:04:44.800 propelled forward by the rhythmic chanting of 00:04:44.800 --> 00:04:48.100 a high school pep rally. It really is a masterclass 00:04:48.100 --> 00:04:51.459 in using contrasting sonic textures to create 00:04:51.459 --> 00:04:54.500 a feeling of absolute unadulterated euphoria. 00:04:55.379 --> 00:04:57.600 But that jubilant instrumentation is doing some 00:04:57.600 --> 00:04:59.720 very heavy lifting. What do you mean? Well, it 00:04:59.720 --> 00:05:02.339 is actively masking the reality of what the song 00:05:02.339 --> 00:05:04.720 is actually about. which leads us to a really 00:05:04.720 --> 00:05:06.839 fascinating divide in how the track was received. 00:05:07.100 --> 00:05:09.019 Right, because the upbeat infectious production 00:05:09.019 --> 00:05:11.040 is essentially a sugar -coated pill. It pulls 00:05:11.040 --> 00:05:13.720 you in with this bouncy harmless joy, but what 00:05:13.720 --> 00:05:16.339 is actually delivering the text of the song itself 00:05:16.339 --> 00:05:18.860 creates a massive duality. Yeah, the lyrics to 00:05:18.860 --> 00:05:21.800 Want You in My Room are incredibly direct. Very 00:05:21.800 --> 00:05:23.959 direct. They're explicitly sexual, described 00:05:23.959 --> 00:05:26.839 across our sources as brazen, with the singer 00:05:26.839 --> 00:05:29.279 actively and openly inviting a partner into her 00:05:29.279 --> 00:05:33.439 bed. And this juxtaposition. this fun nostalgic 00:05:33.439 --> 00:05:37.060 synth pop track carrying such brazen adult lyrics 00:05:37.060 --> 00:05:39.959 became the central talking point for music journalists. 00:05:40.060 --> 00:05:41.600 Yeah, they couldn't stop talking about it. For 00:05:41.600 --> 00:05:43.920 the majority of critics, that duality was exactly 00:05:43.920 --> 00:05:47.319 why they loved it. NME specifically praised how 00:05:47.319 --> 00:05:50.000 those brazen lyrics interacted with the jubilant 00:05:50.000 --> 00:05:52.610 instrumentation. And The Independent went as 00:05:52.610 --> 00:05:54.970 far as to call it the most distinctive song on 00:05:54.970 --> 00:05:57.449 the entire dedicated album, both vocally and 00:05:57.449 --> 00:05:59.610 melodically. Nother Jones even named it the second 00:05:59.610 --> 00:06:01.990 best track on the record. So you have this massive 00:06:01.990 --> 00:06:06.879 wave of high brow critical praise. But it was 00:06:06.879 --> 00:06:09.459 not universal. And here's where it gets really 00:06:09.459 --> 00:06:12.000 interesting. Oh, yeah, the backlash. Exactly. 00:06:12.680 --> 00:06:15.160 Consequence of Sound published a distinctly negative 00:06:15.160 --> 00:06:17.680 review of the track. And their criticism was 00:06:17.680 --> 00:06:20.420 aimed entirely at that specific duality. They 00:06:20.420 --> 00:06:23.079 really hated that clash. They heavily criticized 00:06:23.079 --> 00:06:25.800 the song for pairing what they called a childlike 00:06:25.800 --> 00:06:28.800 tone with sexual content. They felt the juxtaposition 00:06:28.800 --> 00:06:31.459 didn't work at all. Right. And honestly, I have 00:06:31.459 --> 00:06:33.759 to play devil's advocate here. Is Consequence 00:06:33.759 --> 00:06:36.360 of Sound actually right? How so? Well, when we 00:06:36.360 --> 00:06:39.439 hear a bouncy childlike delivery, our brains 00:06:39.439 --> 00:06:41.879 immediately categorize the incoming information 00:06:41.879 --> 00:06:45.259 as innocent. Sure, the natural reflex. If the 00:06:45.259 --> 00:06:47.939 lyrics are suddenly a brazen invitation to bed, 00:06:48.720 --> 00:06:51.620 doesn't that create a jarring cognitive dissonance? 00:06:52.100 --> 00:06:54.399 Doesn't that fundamentally risk alienating the 00:06:54.399 --> 00:06:56.740 listener who doesn't know how they're supposed 00:06:56.740 --> 00:06:59.660 to feel? If we connect this to the bigger picture, 00:07:00.560 --> 00:07:02.579 that tension you were pointing out, the cognitive 00:07:02.579 --> 00:07:05.500 dissonance between an innocent delivery and mature 00:07:05.500 --> 00:07:08.620 themes is a deliberate artistic choice. You think 00:07:08.620 --> 00:07:11.300 it was entirely on purpose? Oh, absolutely. It 00:07:11.300 --> 00:07:13.660 is the very engine of the song. Consequence of 00:07:13.660 --> 00:07:15.759 sound accurately identified the tension, but 00:07:15.759 --> 00:07:18.259 they perhaps misread its purpose. Interesting. 00:07:18.480 --> 00:07:20.839 We have been conditioned by decades of pop culture 00:07:20.839 --> 00:07:24.079 to believe that if a female pop star is singing 00:07:24.079 --> 00:07:27.579 about adult sexuality, the music must be dark, 00:07:27.899 --> 00:07:30.670 brooding, or heavily serious. Right. Right, the 00:07:30.670 --> 00:07:32.329 traditional pivot where the artist declares, 00:07:32.470 --> 00:07:34.509 I'm an adult now, and suddenly the lighting in 00:07:34.509 --> 00:07:37.889 all their videos drops by 50%. Precisely. They 00:07:37.889 --> 00:07:39.990 start wearing all black, the bass gets super 00:07:39.990 --> 00:07:42.790 heavy. But by delivering adult desires wrapped 00:07:42.790 --> 00:07:46.350 in a euphoric, childlike, cheer squad energy, 00:07:46.930 --> 00:07:49.189 Jepson is actively challenging the listener's 00:07:49.189 --> 00:07:51.750 expectations. So it's a subversion. Exactly. 00:07:52.250 --> 00:07:54.889 It is a radical claim that adult desire doesn't 00:07:54.889 --> 00:07:57.759 have to be serious or shadowed. It can be jubilant. 00:07:58.120 --> 00:08:01.240 It can be fun. It can be giddy. Yes, as giddy 00:08:01.240 --> 00:08:03.779 and overwhelming as a high school crush without 00:08:03.779 --> 00:08:07.000 losing its maturity. That duality isn't a mistake 00:08:07.000 --> 00:08:10.360 or a miscalculation. It is a highly sophisticated 00:08:10.360 --> 00:08:13.279 subversion of pop music tropes. And that friction 00:08:13.279 --> 00:08:15.500 is exactly what makes the song so compelling 00:08:15.500 --> 00:08:17.920 to so many critics. Exactly. But if you are going 00:08:17.920 --> 00:08:20.040 to create an audio track that relies entirely 00:08:20.040 --> 00:08:22.639 on a euphoric contradiction, you need a visual 00:08:22.639 --> 00:08:25.379 translation that matches that exact energy. You 00:08:25.379 --> 00:08:27.480 really do. You need a music video that physically 00:08:27.480 --> 00:08:29.839 looks the way that cognitive dissonance feels. 00:08:29.879 --> 00:08:32.039 And I think it's like a pop music Alice in Wonderland. 00:08:32.320 --> 00:08:34.519 Which brings us to the visual landscape created 00:08:34.519 --> 00:08:36.940 for the track. The music video for Want You in 00:08:36.940 --> 00:08:40.139 My Room premiered in September of 2019. Directed 00:08:40.139 --> 00:08:42.759 by Andrew Donahoe, right? All right, Andrew Donahoe. 00:08:42.980 --> 00:08:45.559 And the visual narrative they constructed completely 00:08:45.559 --> 00:08:49.179 abandons traditional storytelling in favor of 00:08:49.179 --> 00:08:52.700 surreal, disjointed dream logic. And the pacing 00:08:52.700 --> 00:08:55.220 of how that dream logic is introduced is brilliant. 00:08:55.500 --> 00:08:57.679 It doesn't start weird. It starts in a grounded, 00:08:58.139 --> 00:09:00.860 almost painfully mundane reality. Very normal. 00:09:01.039 --> 00:09:03.500 Jepson is sitting in her bed finishing up a phone 00:09:03.500 --> 00:09:05.980 call with her boyfriend. She literally turns 00:09:05.980 --> 00:09:09.139 and instructs her Google Home smart speaker to 00:09:09.139 --> 00:09:12.240 set a timer for one hour. Right, a literal ticking 00:09:12.240 --> 00:09:14.980 clock. And then she just starts joyfully singing 00:09:14.980 --> 00:09:18.539 into a hairbrush. It is the most relatable everyday 00:09:18.539 --> 00:09:20.899 snapshot of waiting for someone you like to come 00:09:20.899 --> 00:09:23.690 over. But the moment that timer starts... The 00:09:23.690 --> 00:09:26.370 ground in reality fractures. It shatters completely. 00:09:26.649 --> 00:09:28.789 It's like watching someone's internal adrenaline 00:09:28.789 --> 00:09:31.350 spike being physically mapped onto their environment. 00:09:31.470 --> 00:09:34.169 Yeah, the room literally breaks apart. She steps 00:09:34.169 --> 00:09:36.389 out of her bedroom door, but the room isn't inside 00:09:36.389 --> 00:09:38.730 a house. The walls are completely disjointed 00:09:38.730 --> 00:09:41.169 and the entire bedroom is just sitting right 00:09:41.169 --> 00:09:43.870 in the middle of a wide open, expansive green 00:09:43.870 --> 00:09:46.509 space. And from there, the rules of physics just 00:09:46.509 --> 00:09:49.220 stop applying altogether. She dances over to 00:09:49.220 --> 00:09:51.399 a dressing table that is sitting outside in the 00:09:51.399 --> 00:09:54.419 grass, reapplies her lipstick, and walks through 00:09:54.419 --> 00:09:56.659 another freestanding door. And this is where 00:09:56.659 --> 00:09:59.019 the editing and the visual landscapes start doing 00:09:59.019 --> 00:10:02.179 incredible psychological work. With each transition 00:10:02.179 --> 00:10:04.759 through a door, the environment radically shifts. 00:10:05.100 --> 00:10:07.740 She appears on a beach. Right. And then she walks 00:10:07.740 --> 00:10:10.000 through another frame and appears by the side 00:10:10.000 --> 00:10:12.980 of a swimming pool. Every time she reappears, 00:10:13.120 --> 00:10:15.289 she is in a completely different outfit. Why 00:10:15.289 --> 00:10:17.769 those specific shifts though? Why a beach and 00:10:17.769 --> 00:10:20.309 a pool? Like, what does that actually signify? 00:10:20.509 --> 00:10:22.730 Because it is a physical manifestation of the 00:10:22.730 --> 00:10:25.190 word euphoric. Yeah. Think about the specific 00:10:25.190 --> 00:10:27.870 emotional state the song is capturing. The manic 00:10:27.870 --> 00:10:30.809 waiting period. Exactly. That manic unstructured 00:10:30.809 --> 00:10:33.809 hour before a lever arrives. The Google Home 00:10:33.809 --> 00:10:36.970 timer. sets a literal ticking countdown that 00:10:36.970 --> 00:10:39.129 paces the visual edit. Oh, that makes so much 00:10:39.129 --> 00:10:41.350 sense. When your mind is racing with anticipation, 00:10:41.450 --> 00:10:44.250 you can't focus. You try on five different outfits. 00:10:44.570 --> 00:10:46.370 You imagine a hundred different scenarios. You're 00:10:46.370 --> 00:10:49.950 just pacing around. Right. The shifting, disconnected 00:10:49.950 --> 00:10:53.070 landscapes, the beach, the pool, the field perfectly 00:10:53.070 --> 00:10:56.149 mirror that giddy, unfocused, manic feeling of 00:10:56.149 --> 00:10:59.730 waiting. The surrealism isn't just a quirky director 00:10:59.730 --> 00:11:02.870 trying to be weird. It is an externalization 00:11:02.870 --> 00:11:06.149 of an internal state. The physical world is literally 00:11:06.149 --> 00:11:08.710 bending and reshaping itself around the sheer 00:11:08.710 --> 00:11:11.549 gravity of her excitement. And that culminates 00:11:11.549 --> 00:11:13.889 in the climax of the video. Which is just fantastic. 00:11:14.009 --> 00:11:16.110 She finally runs back to her bedroom. The timer 00:11:16.110 --> 00:11:17.870 is almost up, but the room is changed again. 00:11:18.370 --> 00:11:20.389 She starts dancing to the music being played 00:11:20.389 --> 00:11:22.889 by a live band. But the band isn't made of people. 00:11:23.190 --> 00:11:26.190 No! It is a band consisting entirely of furniture 00:11:26.190 --> 00:11:28.750 with human arms playing the instruments. It is 00:11:28.750 --> 00:11:31.139 the... absolute peak of the adrenaline spike. 00:11:31.320 --> 00:11:33.820 It really is. When you are that excited, that 00:11:33.820 --> 00:11:36.779 thoroughly consumed by anticipation, even the 00:11:36.779 --> 00:11:38.940 inanimate objects in your room feel like they're 00:11:38.940 --> 00:11:41.240 buzzing with life and rhythm. Everything feels 00:11:41.240 --> 00:11:43.740 amplified. The chair, the lamp, everything feels 00:11:43.740 --> 00:11:46.940 loud. You have this deeply relatable human moment 00:11:46.940 --> 00:11:49.539 matched up with armed furniture playing instruments. 00:11:49.679 --> 00:11:52.059 And then the tension finally breaks. The hour 00:11:52.059 --> 00:11:55.159 is up. The boyfriend knocks on the door and Jepson 00:11:55.159 --> 00:11:58.340 simply pulls him inside by his tie. the fantasy 00:11:58.340 --> 00:12:00.879 collapses back into reality. It's just so well 00:12:00.879 --> 00:12:03.000 done. So when you look at all these moving parts, 00:12:03.879 --> 00:12:07.500 the intricate historical layering of Jack Antonoff's 00:12:07.500 --> 00:12:10.500 production, the deliberate subversion of lyrical 00:12:10.500 --> 00:12:14.159 expectations, and Andrew Donahoe's surreal visual 00:12:14.159 --> 00:12:17.809 translation of a crush. You realize why this 00:12:17.809 --> 00:12:20.110 track left such a massive cultural footprint. 00:12:20.289 --> 00:12:21.870 Right, because it didn't just come and go like 00:12:21.870 --> 00:12:24.450 a standard radio single. The lightacy of Want 00:12:24.450 --> 00:12:27.049 You In My Room extends far beyond its initial 00:12:27.049 --> 00:12:29.730 release in the spring of 2019. Oh yeah, it stuck 00:12:29.730 --> 00:12:32.230 around. It quickly cemented itself as a massive, 00:12:32.570 --> 00:12:35.450 undeniable fan favorite. The demand was so high 00:12:35.450 --> 00:12:37.690 that a live version of the track was recorded 00:12:37.690 --> 00:12:40.070 and released as part of a Spotify singles EP 00:12:40.070 --> 00:12:42.350 later that October. But what is most telling 00:12:42.350 --> 00:12:45.190 is how it dominated the year -end critical retrospectives. 00:12:45.769 --> 00:12:48.789 for this kind of pop. Very rare. Historically, 00:12:48.970 --> 00:12:51.509 year -end lists from prestige music publications 00:12:51.509 --> 00:12:55.110 tend to lean heavily toward brooding, acoustic, 00:12:55.250 --> 00:12:57.370 or overtly serious singer -songwriter tracks. 00:12:57.450 --> 00:13:00.590 Yeah, the acoustic guitar crowd. Right. But this 00:13:00.590 --> 00:13:02.870 track forced its way into those conversations. 00:13:03.230 --> 00:13:05.289 Pitchfork readers voted it into their top 50 00:13:05.289 --> 00:13:08.470 songs of 2019. And Rolling Stone explicitly named 00:13:08.470 --> 00:13:11.970 it number 32 on their 50 best songs of 2019 list. 00:13:12.350 --> 00:13:14.110 Paste named it one of the best songs of May. 00:13:14.649 --> 00:13:16.789 and journalists from The Guardian selected it 00:13:16.789 --> 00:13:18.710 as one of the best tracks of the entire year. 00:13:18.889 --> 00:13:21.429 And its reputation has only solidified over time. 00:13:21.570 --> 00:13:24.450 I mean, in 2022, when Variety looked back and 00:13:24.450 --> 00:13:26.850 ranked Carly Rae Jepsen's entire discography, 00:13:27.250 --> 00:13:30.149 they placed Want You In My Room as her third 00:13:30.149 --> 00:13:33.049 best song ever recorded. That is huge praise. 00:13:33.669 --> 00:13:35.710 So what does this all mean? If you are listening 00:13:35.710 --> 00:13:37.730 to this right now, whether you are a diehard 00:13:37.730 --> 00:13:40.309 pop music fanatic who dissects every B -side 00:13:40.309 --> 00:13:42.529 or you are just someone trying to understand 00:13:42.529 --> 00:13:44.610 the mechanics of how cultural touchstones are 00:13:44.610 --> 00:13:47.230 built, why should you care about the deep dive 00:13:47.230 --> 00:13:50.029 analysis of a three -minute synth pop track from 00:13:50.029 --> 00:13:53.110 2019. This is a valid question. What is the real 00:13:53.110 --> 00:13:55.490 actionable takeaway from this specific alchemy? 00:13:55.690 --> 00:13:57.789 This raises an important question about how we 00:13:57.789 --> 00:14:00.570 fundamentally value music, and specifically the 00:14:00.570 --> 00:14:02.730 lingering prejudice against pop music. Oh, the 00:14:02.730 --> 00:14:05.950 idea that it's just fluff. Exactly. There is 00:14:05.950 --> 00:14:08.950 an ingrained societal assumption that a song 00:14:08.950 --> 00:14:11.909 with a cheer squad vibe or a bouncy 80s synth 00:14:11.909 --> 00:14:15.470 line is inherently disposable. Right. We are 00:14:15.470 --> 00:14:18.090 taught to view it as a guilty pleasure. somehow 00:14:18.090 --> 00:14:21.129 less rigorous or less artistic than a somber 00:14:21.129 --> 00:14:24.330 ballad played on acoustic guitar. But Want You 00:14:24.330 --> 00:14:27.529 in My Room dismantles that prejudice entirely. 00:14:27.690 --> 00:14:30.049 Because it proves that joy requires just as much 00:14:30.049 --> 00:14:33.440 architectural genius as sorrow. Exactly. When 00:14:33.440 --> 00:14:35.919 you look at the sheer volume of high brow critical 00:14:35.919 --> 00:14:38.299 acclaim this song received, it shows you that 00:14:38.299 --> 00:14:40.879 a song could be simultaneously a fun, synth -heavy 00:14:40.879 --> 00:14:43.519 bop that you enthusiastically sing into a hairbrush, 00:14:43.779 --> 00:14:46.019 and a rigorously crafted piece of art worthy 00:14:46.019 --> 00:14:48.659 of deep, sustained analysis. It really is both. 00:14:49.240 --> 00:14:51.259 The architecture of a perfect pop song, the way 00:14:51.259 --> 00:14:54.000 it balances vocoders against human breath, the 00:14:54.000 --> 00:14:56.179 way it uses rhythm to trigger your nervous system, 00:14:56.539 --> 00:14:59.120 the way it juxtaposes innocent tones with brazen 00:14:59.120 --> 00:15:01.940 lyrics, is as complex and sophisticated as any 00:15:01.940 --> 00:15:04.500 other art form. The fact that it sounds so effortless, 00:15:04.679 --> 00:15:06.919 so purely emotional, is proof of its technical 00:15:06.919 --> 00:15:09.899 perfection. So, to quickly recap the incredible 00:15:09.899 --> 00:15:12.240 journey we've taken you on today, we started 00:15:12.240 --> 00:15:14.980 by stripping down the sonic blueprint of Want 00:15:14.980 --> 00:15:18.289 You in My Room. exploring exactly how Jack Antonoff 00:15:18.289 --> 00:15:21.250 and Jepson engineered a musical time machine. 00:15:21.409 --> 00:15:24.610 Blending 80s analog nostalgia with robotic daft 00:15:24.610 --> 00:15:27.129 -plunk vocal effects. Right, and the physiological 00:15:27.129 --> 00:15:29.549 trigger of high -energy cheer squad rhythms. 00:15:30.370 --> 00:15:32.710 Then we waded into the critical debate, exploring 00:15:32.710 --> 00:15:35.830 the deliberate, highly effective friction of 00:15:35.830 --> 00:15:39.149 pairing brazen, adult lyrics with a jubilant, 00:15:39.309 --> 00:15:41.590 childlike vocal delivery. Proving that adult 00:15:41.590 --> 00:15:43.710 desire doesn't have to live in the dark. Exactly. 00:15:44.009 --> 00:15:46.730 Then we walked through Andrew Donahoe's surreal 00:15:46.730 --> 00:15:49.690 Dream Logic music video, navigating a landscape 00:15:49.690 --> 00:15:52.269 of shifting beaches, disconnected rooms, and 00:15:52.269 --> 00:15:54.970 living furniture that perfectly mapped the internal 00:15:54.970 --> 00:15:57.649 adrenaline spike of euphoric anticipation. It's 00:15:57.649 --> 00:15:59.710 a visual masterpiece. And finally, we looked 00:15:59.710 --> 00:16:02.149 at the song's lasting cultural footprint, proving 00:16:02.149 --> 00:16:04.730 that perfect pop music demands to be taken seriously 00:16:04.730 --> 00:16:07.690 as high art. Which leaves us with one final thought 00:16:07.690 --> 00:16:10.330 to consider. We spent a lot of time today talking 00:16:10.330 --> 00:16:12.230 about the tension between the real and the surreal, 00:16:12.350 --> 00:16:14.509 both in the music and in the video. Yeah, that 00:16:14.509 --> 00:16:17.149 friction. What if the true genius of pop music 00:16:17.149 --> 00:16:20.330 isn't about reflecting our daily reality at all, 00:16:20.490 --> 00:16:23.389 but about constructing a hyperreality? Oh, interesting. 00:16:23.610 --> 00:16:26.970 A safe, surreal space, like a disjointed bedroom 00:16:26.970 --> 00:16:30.389 sitting unexpectedly in a wide open green field 00:16:30.389 --> 00:16:33.549 where our most brazen desires and most overwhelming 00:16:33.549 --> 00:16:36.570 emotions can be expressed with absolute childlike 00:16:36.570 --> 00:16:39.570 joy. Wow. The next time you listen to a favorite 00:16:39.570 --> 00:16:41.169 song that makes you want to get up and dance, 00:16:41.409 --> 00:16:43.490 ask yourself, what kind of room is this artist 00:16:43.490 --> 00:16:46.190 trying to pull you into? That is an incredible 00:16:46.190 --> 00:16:48.169 question to leave off on. We want to thank you 00:16:48.169 --> 00:16:50.509 so much for joining us as we unpack the science, 00:16:50.649 --> 00:16:53.210 the psychology, and the absolute magic of this 00:16:53.210 --> 00:16:56.389 modern pop alchemy. Until next time, keep listening 00:16:56.389 --> 00:16:58.690 closely. Thanks for joining us on this deep dive. 00:16:58.769 --> 00:16:59.149 Take care.