WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.580 Imagine finding a diary entry you wrote years 00:00:03.580 --> 00:00:06.000 ago. Right, like back when you were a teenager 00:00:06.000 --> 00:00:09.179 or something. Exactly. Written in like blue ink 00:00:09.179 --> 00:00:12.259 on crinkled paper. And it's just full of this 00:00:12.259 --> 00:00:15.359 heavy, dramatic, top of your lungs angst. We 00:00:15.359 --> 00:00:18.379 all have those. Yeah, we really do. But now imagine 00:00:18.379 --> 00:00:21.260 taking that exact same memory, those exact same 00:00:21.260 --> 00:00:24.359 words, and deciding to rewrite it today. Wow. 00:00:24.489 --> 00:00:28.070 but rewriting it as this laid back reflective 00:00:28.070 --> 00:00:32.350 digital blog post while a reggae band plays softly 00:00:32.350 --> 00:00:34.490 in the background. That is quite the visual. 00:00:34.670 --> 00:00:37.329 Right. It's the exact same core memory, but it's 00:00:37.329 --> 00:00:39.789 being translated through decades of lived experience. 00:00:40.369 --> 00:00:43.130 And that bizarre, fascinating translation is 00:00:43.130 --> 00:00:46.229 exactly what we're going to explore today. Welcome 00:00:46.229 --> 00:00:48.030 to the deep dive, by the way. Glad to be here. 00:00:48.070 --> 00:00:50.590 And it really challenges this assumption we all 00:00:50.590 --> 00:00:53.340 have about permanence. What do you mean by that? 00:00:53.500 --> 00:00:55.119 Well, usually when we talk about building something 00:00:55.119 --> 00:00:57.119 a house, for instance, we expect it to stay put. 00:00:57.380 --> 00:00:59.500 Right, sure. You pour the concrete, you put up 00:00:59.500 --> 00:01:01.659 the drywall, you paint it, and the project is 00:01:01.659 --> 00:01:04.739 just finished. We like to believe that once a 00:01:04.739 --> 00:01:07.319 creative project is out in the world, its identity 00:01:07.319 --> 00:01:10.209 is locked in. Locked in stone. But then you look 00:01:10.209 --> 00:01:12.609 at the world of music, and specifically the way 00:01:12.609 --> 00:01:14.930 some artists relate to their own past work, and 00:01:14.930 --> 00:01:18.010 suddenly that concrete foundation looks a lot 00:01:18.010 --> 00:01:20.689 more like wet clay. Definitely. Today's deep 00:01:20.689 --> 00:01:22.989 dive is based on a really fascinating single 00:01:22.989 --> 00:01:25.810 source. We're looking at a Wikipedia article 00:01:25.810 --> 00:01:29.030 detailing the history of the song Wings by Ringo 00:01:29.030 --> 00:01:32.230 Starr. A great topic. It is. Our mission today 00:01:32.230 --> 00:01:35.290 is to explore the anatomy of this one specific 00:01:35.290 --> 00:01:37.409 track, because it essentially lived two completely 00:01:37.409 --> 00:01:40.590 different lives, released 35 years apart. 35 00:01:40.590 --> 00:01:42.730 years is a long time to sit with a song. Yeah, 00:01:42.750 --> 00:01:46.010 it really is. We are going to unpack how an artist 00:01:46.010 --> 00:01:48.730 revisits, reinvents, and reinterprets their own 00:01:48.730 --> 00:01:52.010 past, and what the drastically different critical 00:01:52.010 --> 00:01:55.670 receptions tell us about art, time, and how our 00:01:55.670 --> 00:01:58.579 environment shapes what we create. It is the 00:01:58.579 --> 00:02:01.620 perfect case study for this, honestly. Looking 00:02:01.620 --> 00:02:03.780 at this song's evolution from its original release 00:02:03.780 --> 00:02:08.319 in 1977 to its total reinvention in 2012, it 00:02:08.319 --> 00:02:11.159 offers a truly unique lens. It really strips 00:02:11.159 --> 00:02:14.240 away the illusion that a piece of recorded music 00:02:14.240 --> 00:02:16.719 is just some fixed artifact in a museum. Exactly. 00:02:16.819 --> 00:02:19.319 It's a living thing. So whether you're a music 00:02:19.319 --> 00:02:21.800 history buff or someone catching up on pop culture, 00:02:22.000 --> 00:02:24.060 you're just, you know... insanely curious about 00:02:24.060 --> 00:02:27.159 the creative process. This story perfectly captures 00:02:27.159 --> 00:02:30.280 that eternal tension between an artist's internal 00:02:30.280 --> 00:02:33.039 vision and the public's perception. So what does 00:02:33.039 --> 00:02:35.360 this all mean? To understand why a song needs 00:02:35.360 --> 00:02:37.719 a massive reinvention in the first place, we 00:02:37.719 --> 00:02:39.780 have to go back to its birth. Which takes us 00:02:39.780 --> 00:02:42.479 to the absolute peak of the analog studio era. 00:02:42.500 --> 00:02:45.919 Oh yeah. August 26, 1977. When an album meant 00:02:45.919 --> 00:02:48.740 vinyl. Precisely. This is when the original version 00:02:48.740 --> 00:02:51.419 of Wings was released in the U .S. It was a single 00:02:51.419 --> 00:02:54.159 via Atlantic Records, featured on the album Ringo 00:02:54.159 --> 00:02:56.400 the 4th, and it was backed with a non -album 00:02:56.400 --> 00:02:58.659 track called Just a Dream on the B -side. The 00:02:58.659 --> 00:03:00.840 classic B -side. Right. And the production details 00:03:00.840 --> 00:03:03.840 of this original 1977 release are incredibly 00:03:03.840 --> 00:03:06.159 telling. Okay, let's unpack this, because you 00:03:06.159 --> 00:03:08.259 can't just talk about a late 70s track without 00:03:08.259 --> 00:03:10.120 talking about the sheer scale of how they made 00:03:10.120 --> 00:03:14.449 music back then. Absolutely. The 1977 version 00:03:14.449 --> 00:03:17.189 was produced by Arief Marden, who was, I mean, 00:03:17.250 --> 00:03:19.990 he was an absolute titan in the recording industry. 00:03:20.229 --> 00:03:22.689 The legend. Marden was known for putting together 00:03:22.689 --> 00:03:25.750 these lush, highly orchestrated, densely populated 00:03:25.750 --> 00:03:28.210 arrangements, and the personnel he assembled 00:03:28.210 --> 00:03:30.689 for this track reflects that philosophy completely. 00:03:31.009 --> 00:03:33.669 It was an army of top -tier talent. It really 00:03:33.669 --> 00:03:37.490 reads like a fantasy draft of 1970s studio musicians. 00:03:37.729 --> 00:03:39.849 It does. You have Ringo Starr on lead vocals 00:03:39.849 --> 00:03:42.490 and drums. Naturally. Naturally. But then you 00:03:42.490 --> 00:03:45.270 also have David Spinoza on lead guitar, Tony 00:03:45.270 --> 00:03:47.870 Levin on bass, Don Grolnik on keyboards, and 00:03:47.870 --> 00:03:50.770 either Jeff Marinov or John Tropea playing additional 00:03:50.770 --> 00:03:53.210 guitars. That's already a massive lineup. Oh, 00:03:53.270 --> 00:03:55.669 but wait. On top of all of that, you have the 00:03:55.669 --> 00:03:58.069 legendary Steve Gad also playing drums. Wait, 00:03:58.090 --> 00:04:00.550 I need to stop right there. Two drummers on one 00:04:00.550 --> 00:04:03.310 track. Two drummers? Ringo Starr and Steve Gad 00:04:03.310 --> 00:04:06.590 playing simultaneously. I have to ask, physically, 00:04:07.129 --> 00:04:09.370 what does that actually do to the sound of a 00:04:09.370 --> 00:04:11.830 record? It's massive. Right, because having that 00:04:11.830 --> 00:04:14.610 kind of lineup feels like you are building this 00:04:14.610 --> 00:04:17.149 heavy rock foundation. Yeah. How did that match 00:04:17.149 --> 00:04:18.970 up with how this song was actually received? 00:04:19.149 --> 00:04:21.490 Well, it matched up perfectly with the expectations 00:04:21.490 --> 00:04:24.490 of the era, really. It created a very specific 00:04:24.490 --> 00:04:27.649 sonic weight. When you have two drummers playing 00:04:27.649 --> 00:04:30.689 in an analog setup, you are moving a massive 00:04:30.689 --> 00:04:33.769 amount of literal air in the recording room. 00:04:33.990 --> 00:04:36.149 Wow. Yeah, just the physics of it. Right. In 00:04:36.149 --> 00:04:39.709 1977, musicians played together in the same physical 00:04:39.709 --> 00:04:43.550 space. So the sound of Steve Gad's snare drum 00:04:43.550 --> 00:04:46.449 is bleeding into the microphones that are picking 00:04:46.449 --> 00:04:49.110 up David Spinoza's guitar. Oh, so you can't just 00:04:49.110 --> 00:04:50.769 isolate them. You can't separate them at all. 00:04:50.829 --> 00:04:53.269 It forces everyone to lock in and feed off each 00:04:53.269 --> 00:04:55.269 other's physical energy in the room. So it's 00:04:55.269 --> 00:04:57.490 less like assembling a puzzle and more like, 00:04:57.490 --> 00:04:59.670 I don't know, watching a live Broadway ensemble. 00:04:59.910 --> 00:05:01.800 That's a great way to put it. Everyone has to 00:05:01.800 --> 00:05:04.339 hit their mark at the exact same time, and that 00:05:04.339 --> 00:05:06.439 shared adrenaline basically becomes part of the 00:05:06.439 --> 00:05:09.759 recording. Exactly, and the critics recognized 00:05:09.759 --> 00:05:12.519 that energy at the time. If we look at a review 00:05:12.519 --> 00:05:14.540 from Cashbox magazine, this is dated September 00:05:14.540 --> 00:05:18.519 3, 1977, they praised the track specifically 00:05:18.519 --> 00:05:21.649 for that dense... collaborative sound. What did 00:05:21.649 --> 00:05:23.730 they say? They wrote that the haunting melody 00:05:23.730 --> 00:05:26.629 is carried by a closely knit ensemble of vocalists. 00:05:26.870 --> 00:05:28.930 And they specifically highlighted that the track 00:05:28.930 --> 00:05:31.430 was supported by a richly textured horn section 00:05:31.430 --> 00:05:34.209 and stabbing guitars. Stabbing guitars. That 00:05:34.209 --> 00:05:37.269 is such a visceral phrase. It implies like urgency, 00:05:37.329 --> 00:05:40.110 aggression, something very forward leaning. It 00:05:40.110 --> 00:05:42.389 really does. And it perfectly contextualizes 00:05:42.389 --> 00:05:44.870 where this song sat in Ringo's career at the 00:05:44.870 --> 00:05:47.930 time. Chronologically, the single was sandwiched 00:05:47.930 --> 00:05:51.439 right between his releases of and drowning in 00:05:51.439 --> 00:05:54.620 the sea of love. This was an era of big dramatic 00:05:54.620 --> 00:05:57.120 statements. The wall of sound was the goal. I 00:05:57.120 --> 00:05:59.540 have to admit, looking at the success of that 00:05:59.540 --> 00:06:03.139 77 track, revisiting it 35 years later feels 00:06:03.139 --> 00:06:06.079 incredibly risky. It is risky. Usually when legacy 00:06:06.079 --> 00:06:08.680 artists decide to go back and touch their classic 00:06:08.680 --> 00:06:12.639 richly textured hits, it ends up feeling like... 00:06:12.920 --> 00:06:15.779 a cash grab or just a desperate attempt to stay 00:06:15.779 --> 00:06:18.019 relevant. Yeah, fans can be very protective. 00:06:18.259 --> 00:06:20.980 Exactly. If the original had these stabbing guitars 00:06:20.980 --> 00:06:23.060 and this haunting melody that critics loved, 00:06:23.699 --> 00:06:26.620 why not just let it live in the pantheon of 1970s 00:06:26.620 --> 00:06:29.540 rock? Was Ringo just bored? That's the natural 00:06:29.540 --> 00:06:31.959 assumption, right? Yeah. But the reality is much 00:06:31.959 --> 00:06:34.899 more about the unavoidable shifting of an artist's 00:06:34.899 --> 00:06:37.819 internal landscape. 35 years is a long time to 00:06:37.819 --> 00:06:39.620 live with a piece of your own art. It is a lifetime. 00:06:39.899 --> 00:06:43.459 So we jump forward to January 10th, 2012. Ringo 00:06:43.459 --> 00:06:46.220 Starr releases the album Ringo 2012 via Hippo 00:06:46.220 --> 00:06:48.620 Records. And right there on the crack list is 00:06:48.620 --> 00:06:50.740 Wings. But something is completely different. 00:06:50.899 --> 00:06:53.220 The genre has shifted entirely. We have gone 00:06:53.220 --> 00:06:56.800 from a heavily layered, urgent 1970s rock epic 00:06:56.800 --> 00:07:00.399 to reggae rock. Which feels less like a simple 00:07:00.399 --> 00:07:02.420 remix and more like a complete teardown of the 00:07:02.420 --> 00:07:05.420 house. Rock to reggae is a massive pivot. What's 00:07:05.420 --> 00:07:07.560 fascinating here is how Ringo explained the shift. 00:07:07.579 --> 00:07:10.069 He was very open about his motivation. He said, 00:07:10.709 --> 00:07:12.970 this is a song I first recorded on Ringo the 00:07:12.970 --> 00:07:15.709 4th back when an album meant vinyl. These are 00:07:15.709 --> 00:07:17.589 different days. And it's one of those songs I 00:07:17.589 --> 00:07:19.629 always wanted to revisit. I love that phrase, 00:07:19.709 --> 00:07:22.569 when an album meant vinyl. It's so evocative. 00:07:22.769 --> 00:07:25.009 It really acknowledges that the medium itself 00:07:25.009 --> 00:07:27.730 dictated the art. Right. And he has a really 00:07:27.730 --> 00:07:30.009 charming detail about his co -writer on the track, 00:07:30.209 --> 00:07:33.529 Vinny Poncia. Ringo said, I wrote Wings with 00:07:33.529 --> 00:07:35.509 Vinny Pancia in New York, and he doesn't know 00:07:35.509 --> 00:07:37.329 I've done this yet. I'm going to surprise Vinny 00:07:37.329 --> 00:07:40.230 and send it to him. The idea of surprising your 00:07:40.230 --> 00:07:42.569 co -writer with a fundamentally different version 00:07:42.569 --> 00:07:45.709 of your shared work decades later is just wild 00:07:45.709 --> 00:07:48.050 to me. A fun little surprise in the mail. It 00:07:48.050 --> 00:07:50.529 takes a lot of confidence. But the justification 00:07:50.529 --> 00:07:53.089 he gives for the genre shift is what really caught 00:07:53.089 --> 00:07:56.170 my eye. He says, for the last two years, I've 00:07:56.170 --> 00:07:59.189 been listening to a lot of reggae. So this album 00:07:59.189 --> 00:08:02.139 has a reggae feel to it. What can I tell you? 00:08:02.459 --> 00:08:04.600 I'm a product of my environment. I always loved 00:08:04.600 --> 00:08:07.100 the sentiment of this song and I'm glad we finally 00:08:07.100 --> 00:08:10.360 got it right. Finally got it right. That is a 00:08:10.360 --> 00:08:12.920 loaded statement from the original creator. It 00:08:12.920 --> 00:08:14.600 really is and I want to challenge that premise 00:08:14.600 --> 00:08:16.899 a bit. Go for it. Ringo says he always loved 00:08:16.899 --> 00:08:20.379 the sentiment of the song. But this changing 00:08:20.379 --> 00:08:23.660 the genre... Completely from a rock track driven 00:08:23.660 --> 00:08:26.620 by two drummers and stabbing guitars to a laid 00:08:26.620 --> 00:08:29.240 -back reggae groove, does that fundamentally 00:08:29.240 --> 00:08:31.540 alter the original sentiment? Fair question. 00:08:31.800 --> 00:08:33.940 It just seems impossible to change the musical 00:08:33.940 --> 00:08:36.460 skeleton that drastically without changing the 00:08:36.460 --> 00:08:39.120 emotional meaning of the lyrics. It absolutely 00:08:39.120 --> 00:08:41.519 alters the delivery of the sentiment and we can 00:08:41.519 --> 00:08:44.519 see exactly how by looking at the mechanics of 00:08:44.519 --> 00:08:47.250 reggae versus rock. Break that down for me. Well, 00:08:47.450 --> 00:08:50.389 in rock music, especially the 1977 style we discussed, 00:08:50.850 --> 00:08:53.549 the rhythm section is driving forward, heavily 00:08:53.549 --> 00:08:56.370 accenting the downbeats. It creates that urgent 00:08:56.370 --> 00:08:59.350 stabbing feeling. Right. Reggae does the exact 00:08:59.350 --> 00:09:02.049 opposite. Reggae is built on the offbeat, the 00:09:02.049 --> 00:09:05.129 syncopation. The emphasis is on the spaces between 00:09:05.129 --> 00:09:07.389 the beats. Oh, I see. So it physically forces 00:09:07.389 --> 00:09:10.149 the singer to lay back. You can't shout a rock 00:09:10.149 --> 00:09:13.250 lyric over a reggae offbeat. You have to stretch 00:09:13.250 --> 00:09:14.889 the words out. You have to let them breathe. 00:09:15.070 --> 00:09:17.970 Precisely. The words take on a more reflective, 00:09:18.269 --> 00:09:20.990 perhaps more mature weight rather than an urgent, 00:09:21.230 --> 00:09:24.179 angsty one. And this shift in genre is mirrored 00:09:24.179 --> 00:09:26.940 perfectly by the shift in how the 2012 version 00:09:26.940 --> 00:09:28.700 was actually produced. Because he didn't bring 00:09:28.700 --> 00:09:30.639 Aerith Martin's army back into the studio. Oh, 00:09:30.639 --> 00:09:34.200 no, he definitely didn't. The 2012 version represents 00:09:34.200 --> 00:09:36.340 a completely different philosophy of creation. 00:09:36.820 --> 00:09:39.379 It was produced by Ringo himself, along with 00:09:39.379 --> 00:09:42.279 Bruce Sugar. So much smaller team. It is a much 00:09:42.279 --> 00:09:46.100 more intimate, enclosed process. In 2012, Ringo 00:09:46.100 --> 00:09:47.940 is doing the heavy lifting across the board. 00:09:48.399 --> 00:09:51.379 The credits list him on drums, percussion. vocals, 00:09:51.700 --> 00:09:54.299 keyboards, and backing vocals. Wow, that is the 00:09:54.299 --> 00:09:56.919 complete opposite of the Broadway ensemble. Completely. 00:09:57.019 --> 00:09:59.820 If the 1977 version is a bunch of people bleeding 00:09:59.820 --> 00:10:02.159 into each other's microphones in a massive room, 00:10:02.899 --> 00:10:04.980 this 2012 version sounds like a stop motion film. 00:10:05.000 --> 00:10:07.279 That's a really good comparison. Yeah, like Ringo 00:10:07.279 --> 00:10:09.799 is in a digital studio laying down the drums 00:10:09.799 --> 00:10:12.899 alone, then he goes back and meticulously layers 00:10:12.899 --> 00:10:15.940 the keyboards over it. He is in total control 00:10:15.940 --> 00:10:18.539 of every micro movement. That is a perfect analogy. 00:10:18.860 --> 00:10:21.759 The digital audio workstation replaced the massive 00:10:21.759 --> 00:10:29.000 analog In its place, you have a much smaller, 00:10:29.200 --> 00:10:31.600 trusted circle. You've got Joe Walsh on guitar, 00:10:31.960 --> 00:10:34.759 Ben Montenegro on organ, and Bruce Sugar handling 00:10:34.759 --> 00:10:37.259 the piano and horn arrangements. You also have 00:10:37.259 --> 00:10:40.019 Amy Keys and Kelly Moneymaker providing the backing 00:10:40.019 --> 00:10:42.879 vocals. It's an isolated, controlled environment. 00:10:43.259 --> 00:10:45.919 So when Ringo says, I'm a product of my environment, 00:10:46.299 --> 00:10:48.340 he means it both musically and technologically. 00:10:48.919 --> 00:10:52.340 Absolutely. In 1977, his environment was a massive 00:10:52.340 --> 00:10:54.620 room with a dozen musicians trying to create 00:10:54.620 --> 00:10:58.529 a vinyl hit. In 2012, his environment was a digital 00:10:58.529 --> 00:11:01.029 studio, having the tools to layer most of the 00:11:01.029 --> 00:11:03.850 track himself asynchronously while being heavily 00:11:03.850 --> 00:11:06.470 influenced by two years of just listening to 00:11:06.470 --> 00:11:08.610 reggae. And that shift in environment stripped 00:11:08.610 --> 00:11:11.029 away the externalized rock performance and replaced 00:11:11.029 --> 00:11:13.809 it with a very personalized, grew -driven digital 00:11:13.809 --> 00:11:16.289 project. Ringo felt this new environment allowed 00:11:16.289 --> 00:11:18.309 him to finally get the core sentiment of the 00:11:18.309 --> 00:11:20.490 song correct. Which is a beautiful realization 00:11:20.490 --> 00:11:23.049 for an artist to have. But here's where it gets 00:11:23.049 --> 00:11:26.090 really interesting. Because while Ringo Starr, 00:11:26.389 --> 00:11:28.590 the creator of the intellectual property, felt 00:11:28.590 --> 00:11:31.289 he had finally achieved his true vision, the 00:11:31.289 --> 00:11:34.330 audience reaction was an entirely different story. 00:11:34.529 --> 00:11:37.309 The critical reception was undeniably fractured. 00:11:37.509 --> 00:11:39.529 That is putting it mildly. Let's look at the 00:11:39.529 --> 00:11:42.370 review from Billy Dukes. He was writing for Ultimate 00:11:42.370 --> 00:11:45.370 Classic Rock in January 2012. Oh, this one is 00:11:45.370 --> 00:11:48.269 tough. Dukes absolutely slammed the reggae remake. 00:11:48.450 --> 00:11:50.970 He compared it directly to the 1977 original 00:11:50.970 --> 00:11:53.690 and called the new version a less passionate 00:11:53.690 --> 00:11:56.690 borderline lifeless vocal performance. Lifeless 00:11:56.690 --> 00:11:59.350 is a very strong critique for an artist who felt 00:11:59.350 --> 00:12:01.649 he had just breathed new life into an old idea. 00:12:01.710 --> 00:12:04.269 It's brutal. But it makes me wonder if Dukes 00:12:04.269 --> 00:12:06.490 is simply misunderstanding the mechanics of the 00:12:06.490 --> 00:12:08.840 genre shift we just talked about. How so? I mean 00:12:08.840 --> 00:12:10.600 if you were sitting there with headphones on, 00:12:11.000 --> 00:12:13.080 specifically waiting for the urgency of stabbing 00:12:13.080 --> 00:12:16.299 guitars and the dramatic haunting ensemble vocals 00:12:16.299 --> 00:12:19.659 of a 1977 rock epic, then of course a digitally 00:12:19.659 --> 00:12:22.320 produced laid -back reggae track is going to 00:12:22.320 --> 00:12:24.500 sound lifeless in comparison. It's a totally 00:12:24.500 --> 00:12:26.379 different frequency. Exactly. It's operating 00:12:26.379 --> 00:12:28.460 on a completely different emotional frequency. 00:12:28.600 --> 00:12:31.379 You're expecting a sprint and the artist is inviting 00:12:31.379 --> 00:12:34.409 you for a slow walk. This raises an important 00:12:34.409 --> 00:12:36.669 question about the role of nostalgia and how 00:12:36.669 --> 00:12:39.629 art is consumed and evaluated. Oh, totally. The 00:12:39.629 --> 00:12:42.409 critic, Billy Dukes, is reviewing the 2012 track, 00:12:42.769 --> 00:12:45.370 but he isn't really listening to it in a vacuum. 00:12:45.750 --> 00:12:47.830 He is listening to it through the heavy ghost 00:12:47.830 --> 00:12:50.549 of the 1977 track. Right, he can't unhear the 00:12:50.549 --> 00:12:53.429 original. Exactly. Ringo's identity as a musician 00:12:53.429 --> 00:12:56.929 has evolved over 35 years, but the critic's baseline 00:12:56.929 --> 00:13:00.049 is anchored firmly in the past. So Ringo is essentially 00:13:00.049 --> 00:13:03.059 saying, this is who I am today. I feel the song 00:13:03.059 --> 00:13:06.019 today and the critic is saying, but I liked who 00:13:06.019 --> 00:13:08.440 you were yesterday better. Pretty much. Who gets 00:13:08.440 --> 00:13:11.440 to decide when a song is actually right? Is it 00:13:11.440 --> 00:13:12.899 the artist who wrote it and feels it finally 00:13:12.899 --> 00:13:15.720 matches their internal rhythm or is it the critic 00:13:15.720 --> 00:13:17.820 who is comparing it to a 35 year old memory? 00:13:18.059 --> 00:13:20.759 It's the eternal struggle of the legacy artist. 00:13:21.039 --> 00:13:22.860 But what is truly brilliant about this story 00:13:22.860 --> 00:13:26.519 is how Ringo Starr seemed entirely unfazed by 00:13:26.519 --> 00:13:29.259 that critical friction. He just kept going. He 00:13:29.259 --> 00:13:32.100 really did because the 2012 version of Wings 00:13:32.100 --> 00:13:34.539 didn't just stop it being a debated studio recording. 00:13:35.000 --> 00:13:38.159 It continued to evolve and it found these totally 00:13:38.159 --> 00:13:41.139 unexpected afterlives that distanced it even 00:13:41.139 --> 00:13:44.539 further from the 1977 original. which brings 00:13:44.539 --> 00:13:47.740 us to the music video, which is such a fascinating 00:13:47.740 --> 00:13:50.519 pivot in how artists interacted with the internet 00:13:50.519 --> 00:13:52.700 around that time. It really was. Rather than 00:13:52.700 --> 00:13:55.080 going the traditional industry route of hiring 00:13:55.080 --> 00:13:57.940 a big -mudget director to shoot a glossy, tightly 00:13:57.940 --> 00:14:01.860 -controlled promotional video, Ringo fully embraced 00:14:01.860 --> 00:14:04.000 the collaborative potential of the digital era. 00:14:04.279 --> 00:14:06.960 He decided to crowdsource the official music 00:14:06.960 --> 00:14:09.659 video for the 2012 version. Crowdsourcing a music 00:14:09.659 --> 00:14:12.539 video in 2012 is such a specific cultural moment. 00:14:12.840 --> 00:14:14.879 You are basically handing over the visual identity 00:14:14.879 --> 00:14:17.659 of your song to the internet. Exactly. He used 00:14:17.659 --> 00:14:20.659 a platform called genero .tv, which allowed independent 00:14:20.659 --> 00:14:22.840 filmmakers from all over the world to pitch their 00:14:22.840 --> 00:14:24.960 own visual interpretations of the track. That's 00:14:24.960 --> 00:14:28.259 so cool. Ultimately, a Vancouver -based filmmaker 00:14:28.259 --> 00:14:31.940 won the contest. Ringo personally reviewed the 00:14:31.940 --> 00:14:34.639 submissions, chose the winning entry, and publicly 00:14:34.639 --> 00:14:37.860 praised it, calling it a great little video. 00:14:38.029 --> 00:14:40.009 Just think about the trajectory of that. It's 00:14:40.009 --> 00:14:42.629 a journey. A song that started in a sweaty analog 00:14:42.629 --> 00:14:47.070 studio in 1977 with an army of musicians has 00:14:47.070 --> 00:14:49.889 now morphed into a digital reggae track that 00:14:49.889 --> 00:14:52.929 gets its visual identity from a fan -sourced 00:14:52.929 --> 00:14:55.070 filmmaker on the other side of the globe. It 00:14:55.070 --> 00:14:57.129 really is wild. It's like the song is just collecting 00:14:57.129 --> 00:14:58.950 different environments as it travels through 00:14:58.950 --> 00:15:01.809 time. And its journey still isn't over. Because 00:15:01.809 --> 00:15:05.470 the ultimate test of any song's durability, regardless 00:15:05.470 --> 00:15:08.409 of its genre or the era it was recorded in, is 00:15:08.409 --> 00:15:10.750 how it lives outside the studio in front of a 00:15:10.750 --> 00:15:13.190 live audience. Right, the live test. Ringo took 00:15:13.190 --> 00:15:15.970 this new reggae arrangement on the road. A live 00:15:15.970 --> 00:15:18.490 version was recorded in Atlanta by Ringo Starr 00:15:18.490 --> 00:15:21.059 and his All -Star Band. So he brings it back 00:15:21.059 --> 00:15:23.500 into a live ensemble setting, but with the new 00:15:23.500 --> 00:15:27.159 DNA of the 2012 reggae version. Precisely. And 00:15:27.159 --> 00:15:29.399 that specific live recording in Atlanta ended 00:15:29.399 --> 00:15:31.860 up serving a purpose far beyond just entertaining 00:15:31.860 --> 00:15:34.509 a crowd. Oh really? Yeah. If we connect this 00:15:34.509 --> 00:15:37.049 to the bigger picture, that live recording was 00:15:37.049 --> 00:15:39.769 utilized for a much greater cause. It was officially 00:15:39.769 --> 00:15:42.250 released on a charity compilation album titled 00:15:42.250 --> 00:15:45.509 Songs After Sandy, Friends Red Hook for Sandy 00:15:45.509 --> 00:15:48.309 Relief, which was put together specifically to 00:15:48.309 --> 00:15:50.990 help the victims of Hurricane Sandy. That completely 00:15:50.990 --> 00:15:53.190 recontextualizes the song again. It does. It 00:15:53.190 --> 00:15:55.529 shows the profound, unpredictable journey of 00:15:55.529 --> 00:15:58.480 a single piece of intellectual property. It begins 00:15:58.480 --> 00:16:02.600 as an urgent vinyl rock track in the 1970s. It 00:16:02.600 --> 00:16:05.840 transforms into a reflective digital reggae experiment 00:16:05.840 --> 00:16:09.240 in the 2010s. It becomes a crowd -sourced canvas 00:16:09.240 --> 00:16:12.240 for an independent filmmaker in Canada. And finally, 00:16:12.559 --> 00:16:14.679 it serves as a live communal vehicle to raise 00:16:14.679 --> 00:16:16.919 money for hurricane relief on the East Coast. 00:16:17.159 --> 00:16:19.759 It proves that a song or really any piece of 00:16:19.759 --> 00:16:22.360 art isn't just a fixed artifact. It's a living, 00:16:22.679 --> 00:16:25.299 breathing entity that constantly adapts to the 00:16:25.299 --> 00:16:28.240 era, the technology, and the specific needs of 00:16:28.240 --> 00:16:30.379 the moment. Which brings us right back to you 00:16:30.379 --> 00:16:32.679 listening to this deep dive right now. The application 00:16:32.679 --> 00:16:35.450 of this goes far beyond music history. Exactly. 00:16:35.809 --> 00:16:37.830 Because what is the major takeaway from this 00:16:37.830 --> 00:16:40.570 incredibly weird winding journey of a single 00:16:40.570 --> 00:16:44.590 Ringo Starr song? I think it is the realization 00:16:44.590 --> 00:16:47.509 that nothing you create is ever truly locked 00:16:47.509 --> 00:16:49.870 in stone. The concrete is actually wet clay. 00:16:50.070 --> 00:16:52.929 The concrete is wet clay. Just like Ringo Starr 00:16:52.929 --> 00:16:56.009 looking back at a 1977 track and deciding to 00:16:56.009 --> 00:16:57.470 inject it with the reggae he'd been listening 00:16:57.470 --> 00:17:01.000 to for two years, you too... are a product of 00:17:01.000 --> 00:17:02.940 your environment. Definitely. The tools you have 00:17:02.940 --> 00:17:05.240 today, the media you are consuming right now, 00:17:05.640 --> 00:17:08.579 the life experiences you've gathered, they fundamentally 00:17:08.579 --> 00:17:11.599 change how you see your own past work. And they 00:17:11.599 --> 00:17:14.960 should. Growth requires revision. So don't be 00:17:14.960 --> 00:17:17.420 afraid to revisit an old project, a dusty notebook, 00:17:17.660 --> 00:17:20.299 a discarded idea, or an old presentation with 00:17:20.299 --> 00:17:22.799 fresh eyes. Don't be afraid to rewrite it to 00:17:22.799 --> 00:17:25.180 entirely change its genre, so to speak. Yeah, 00:17:25.339 --> 00:17:27.819 take a risk. Take your own stabbing guitars and 00:17:27.819 --> 00:17:29.400 turn them into a reggae groove, if that's what 00:17:29.400 --> 00:17:31.660 makes sense to you today. Even if the critics 00:17:31.660 --> 00:17:34.519 or worse, your own harsh inner critic, try to 00:17:34.519 --> 00:17:36.220 compare it to the original until you was better 00:17:36.220 --> 00:17:38.839 the first time around. Ignore them. Sometimes 00:17:38.839 --> 00:17:41.000 you just have to tear down the walls and let 00:17:41.000 --> 00:17:43.119 your new environment shape the output so you 00:17:43.119 --> 00:17:45.920 can finally get it right. And that leaves us 00:17:45.920 --> 00:17:48.460 with one last philosophical puzzle to mull over. 00:17:49.259 --> 00:17:51.579 We've seen an artist fundamentally alter the 00:17:51.579 --> 00:17:54.319 genre, the instrumentation, and the entire emotional 00:17:54.319 --> 00:17:57.099 delivery of his own creation 35 years later. 00:17:57.259 --> 00:18:00.390 Yeah. If that is possible, at what point is a 00:18:00.390 --> 00:18:03.289 piece of art ever truly finished? Are the things 00:18:03.289 --> 00:18:06.509 we create today just living drafts, waiting for 00:18:06.509 --> 00:18:08.789 a new environment decades from now to rewrite 00:18:08.789 --> 00:18:10.690 them? Are they just foundations waiting for a 00:18:10.690 --> 00:18:12.730 new house to be built on top of them? Yeah. I 00:18:12.730 --> 00:18:14.730 love that. That is definitely something to chew 00:18:14.730 --> 00:18:17.369 on. Thank you so much for joining us on this 00:18:17.369 --> 00:18:20.470 deep dive today. We love exploring these weird, 00:18:20.730 --> 00:18:23.349 wonderful corners of history with you and celebrating 00:18:23.349 --> 00:18:25.930 that curiosity. We'll be back with more fascinating 00:18:25.930 --> 00:18:28.690 explorations next time. Until then keep looking 00:18:28.690 --> 00:18:30.289 at your old drafts with new eyes.