WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.100 Everyone knows what it feels like to be unfairly 00:00:02.100 --> 00:00:04.759 judged, right? Like we've all had those moments 00:00:04.759 --> 00:00:08.009 of being just. completely misunderstood by the 00:00:08.009 --> 00:00:10.449 people around us. Oh, absolutely. It's incredibly 00:00:10.449 --> 00:00:13.609 isolating. Yeah, it really is. But I mean, imagine 00:00:13.609 --> 00:00:16.710 navigating that exact same feeling, but on a 00:00:16.710 --> 00:00:19.570 global stage. Right. Millions of people are just 00:00:19.570 --> 00:00:22.250 watching your every single move, dissecting your 00:00:22.250 --> 00:00:24.629 private life, and basically deciding who you 00:00:24.629 --> 00:00:26.530 are before you even get a chance to open your 00:00:26.530 --> 00:00:28.449 mouth. Yeah. That's a whole different level of 00:00:28.449 --> 00:00:31.210 pressure. Exactly. And in 2014, Taylor Swift 00:00:31.210 --> 00:00:33.969 wrote a song about that exact experience. But 00:00:33.969 --> 00:00:38.700 she gave it a title, provocative, so confrontational 00:00:38.700 --> 00:00:40.979 that she ultimately had to lock it away in a 00:00:40.979 --> 00:00:43.799 vault for nine whole years. Nine years. It's 00:00:43.799 --> 00:00:46.420 wild to think about. It is. So today we are taking 00:00:46.420 --> 00:00:48.460 our source material and looking at how this discarded 00:00:48.460 --> 00:00:51.380 demo transformed into a massive cultural talking 00:00:51.380 --> 00:00:53.960 point. We're getting into media scrutiny, artistic 00:00:53.960 --> 00:00:56.939 ownership, and you know those really intense 00:00:56.939 --> 00:00:58.880 double standards placed on women in the public 00:00:58.880 --> 00:01:01.600 eye. So okay let's unpack this. Well, we are 00:01:01.600 --> 00:01:04.040 going to look well beyond that highly provocative 00:01:04.040 --> 00:01:06.859 title, which, by the way, officially includes 00:01:06.859 --> 00:01:09.519 both quotation marks and an exclamation point. 00:01:09.560 --> 00:01:11.739 Right. It's very specific formatting. It is. 00:01:11.859 --> 00:01:13.980 And to understand the layered history of the 00:01:13.980 --> 00:01:15.500 track, you have to understand the mechanics of 00:01:15.500 --> 00:01:17.840 the music industry. You have to understand the 00:01:17.840 --> 00:01:21.340 business structures that kept it hidden and the 00:01:21.340 --> 00:01:24.219 very specific cultural moment when it was actually 00:01:24.219 --> 00:01:27.620 conceived. The timeline is just wild to me. You 00:01:27.620 --> 00:01:30.469 have a track written in 2014, right? during the 00:01:30.469 --> 00:01:33.310 peak of her transition into pure pop music. But 00:01:33.310 --> 00:01:36.150 nobody hears a single note of it until October 00:01:36.150 --> 00:01:40.030 2023. I mean, nine years is a literal lifetime 00:01:40.030 --> 00:01:42.670 in pop music. Entire genres rise and fall in 00:01:42.670 --> 00:01:44.950 that span. Exactly. There had to be this massive 00:01:44.950 --> 00:01:47.689 external trigger that forced her to open that 00:01:47.689 --> 00:01:50.310 vault and put this specific song out into the 00:01:50.310 --> 00:01:52.549 world. Yeah. And the trigger was an unprecedented 00:01:52.549 --> 00:01:54.969 structural shift in her career. It was sparked 00:01:54.969 --> 00:01:57.849 by a highly publicized dispute in 2019. Oh, right. 00:01:57.909 --> 00:02:00.189 The Scooter Braun situation. That's the one. 00:02:00.909 --> 00:02:03.329 It involved Swift and the talent manager Scooter 00:02:03.329 --> 00:02:06.849 Braun. Braun's company acquired Big Machine Records, 00:02:07.349 --> 00:02:10.150 which was the label Swift had been signed to 00:02:10.150 --> 00:02:13.770 since she was basically a teenager. And when 00:02:13.770 --> 00:02:16.639 he bought that label, he didn't just buy like 00:02:16.639 --> 00:02:19.580 an office building or a brand name, he acquired 00:02:19.580 --> 00:02:23.060 the master recordings of Swift's first six studio 00:02:23.060 --> 00:02:25.000 albums. Okay, so for anyone who doesn't spend 00:02:25.000 --> 00:02:27.580 their days reading dense music contracts, let's 00:02:27.580 --> 00:02:29.740 break down what a master actually is, because 00:02:29.740 --> 00:02:31.639 there are two copyrights to every song, right? 00:02:31.639 --> 00:02:33.639 Right, exactly two. There's the composition, 00:02:33.719 --> 00:02:35.560 so the lyrics and the melody that you could write 00:02:35.560 --> 00:02:38.280 down on sheet music, and then there is the sound 00:02:38.280 --> 00:02:41.020 recording itself. Yes, the physical or digital 00:02:41.020 --> 00:02:43.759 file of the artist actually singing it in the 00:02:43.759 --> 00:02:46.360 studio. Right. Precisely. The master is that 00:02:46.360 --> 00:02:48.939 original sound recording. And whoever owns the 00:02:48.939 --> 00:02:51.479 master controls the licensing of those specific 00:02:51.479 --> 00:02:53.240 recordings for commercial use. So we're talking 00:02:53.240 --> 00:02:56.599 about like sync licenses for movies, television 00:02:56.599 --> 00:02:58.900 shows, video games, commercials. Yeah. It is 00:02:58.900 --> 00:03:01.900 where a massive, massive portion of the revenue 00:03:01.900 --> 00:03:03.979 and cultural placement in the music industry 00:03:03.979 --> 00:03:07.520 lives. OK, that makes sense. So Swift, understandably, 00:03:07.800 --> 00:03:10.080 wanted to own the actual recordings of her own 00:03:10.080 --> 00:03:12.780 voice, her own life's work, really. And when 00:03:12.780 --> 00:03:14.610 she couldn't purchase them on her own terms, 00:03:14.889 --> 00:03:18.210 she made a highly strategic move. The re -records. 00:03:18.469 --> 00:03:21.330 Yes. Beginning in November 2020, she started 00:03:21.330 --> 00:03:23.370 re -recording those first six albums entirely 00:03:23.370 --> 00:03:25.310 from scratch. It's kind of like someone buying 00:03:25.310 --> 00:03:27.449 your childhood home against your will. So you 00:03:27.449 --> 00:03:30.310 decide to build an exact better replica right 00:03:30.310 --> 00:03:32.949 next door. That's a great way to put it. Right. 00:03:33.110 --> 00:03:35.569 Just to render theirs completely obsolete. You 00:03:35.569 --> 00:03:37.330 own the new one and everyone wants to come to 00:03:37.330 --> 00:03:39.319 your parties instead. What's fascinating here 00:03:39.319 --> 00:03:41.879 is how she managed to turn what was essentially 00:03:41.879 --> 00:03:45.379 a bitter behind the scenes industry contract 00:03:45.379 --> 00:03:49.500 dispute into a triumphant global cultural event. 00:03:49.500 --> 00:03:51.800 Totally. It was everywhere. Because she didn't 00:03:51.800 --> 00:03:54.360 just recreate the old albums track by track to 00:03:54.360 --> 00:03:56.699 incentivize fans to listen to the new versions 00:03:56.699 --> 00:03:59.199 over the originals. She introduced the concept 00:03:59.199 --> 00:04:01.259 of from the vault tracks, which is brilliant 00:04:01.259 --> 00:04:04.020 marketing. Oh, absolutely. These were songs she 00:04:04.020 --> 00:04:06.020 had written for the original albums back in the 00:04:06.020 --> 00:04:08.469 day, but. For one reason or another, they were 00:04:08.469 --> 00:04:11.870 excluded from the final track lists. So she creates 00:04:11.870 --> 00:04:14.569 this massive incentive. You aren't just getting 00:04:14.569 --> 00:04:17.069 the songs you already know. You are getting the 00:04:17.069 --> 00:04:19.810 missing puzzle pieces of her history. Exactly. 00:04:20.370 --> 00:04:23.310 And leading up to the release of the re -recorded 00:04:23.310 --> 00:04:27.110 version of her album, 1989, she actively teased 00:04:27.110 --> 00:04:30.670 the fans. I remember this. She posted an animation 00:04:30.670 --> 00:04:36.529 on Instagram with the characters T, s !ul coming 00:04:36.529 --> 00:04:38.829 out of a blue vault. And the internet decoded 00:04:38.829 --> 00:04:41.430 it in about three seconds. Literally three seconds. 00:04:41.509 --> 00:04:43.889 They're so fast. I really are. And seeing that 00:04:43.889 --> 00:04:46.110 word with its exclamation point just sitting 00:04:46.110 --> 00:04:48.550 there as the 17th track on the album definitely 00:04:48.550 --> 00:04:51.209 turned heads. Oh, for sure. But, you know, while 00:04:51.209 --> 00:04:53.670 the 2019 dispute physically opened the vault 00:04:53.670 --> 00:04:55.889 to understand what was actually inside it and 00:04:55.889 --> 00:04:57.810 why it was locked away in the first place, we 00:04:57.810 --> 00:05:00.009 have to rewind to the moment the door was closed 00:05:00.009 --> 00:05:02.290 in 2014. Right. We have to look at the media 00:05:02.290 --> 00:05:04.509 environment she was navigating at the time. Because 00:05:04.509 --> 00:05:07.740 the 2014 tabloid era was just relentless. If 00:05:07.740 --> 00:05:09.540 you were paying any attention to pop culture 00:05:09.540 --> 00:05:11.459 back then, you already know the narrative. It 00:05:11.459 --> 00:05:14.740 was inescapable. It really was. Our sources note 00:05:14.740 --> 00:05:17.100 that following publicized romances with figures 00:05:17.100 --> 00:05:20.220 like Harry Styles, John Mayer, Jake Gyllenhaal, 00:05:20.579 --> 00:05:22.759 her dating life was treated like a daily soap 00:05:22.759 --> 00:05:25.160 opera by the press. Yeah, the paparazzis were... 00:05:25.000 --> 00:05:28.060 Everywhere. Everywhere. The media relentlessly 00:05:28.060 --> 00:05:31.379 portrayed Swift as this manic serial dater. It 00:05:31.379 --> 00:05:33.699 wasn't just gossip. It was basically a character 00:05:33.699 --> 00:05:36.420 assassination wrapped up in entertainment journalism. 00:05:36.660 --> 00:05:38.600 It became the dominant narrative surrounding 00:05:38.600 --> 00:05:40.920 her. And Swift was acutely aware of this. I mean, 00:05:40.920 --> 00:05:43.000 she didn't just ignore it. She actively addressed 00:05:43.000 --> 00:05:45.000 it in interviews. Right. But more importantly, 00:05:45.079 --> 00:05:47.819 she chose to weaponize that narrative on the 00:05:47.819 --> 00:05:51.319 original 1989 album. She sat down and wrote two 00:05:51.319 --> 00:05:53.959 different songs that tackled the exact same theme 00:05:53.959 --> 00:05:56.579 of how the media perceived her romantic attachments. 00:05:56.920 --> 00:05:59.040 Okay, so one was the massive record -breaking 00:05:59.040 --> 00:06:01.639 hit Blank Space. Yes. And the other was Sluts. 00:06:01.879 --> 00:06:04.360 She actually shared on Tumblr that she realized 00:06:04.360 --> 00:06:07.360 she couldn't put both songs on the original 2014 00:06:07.360 --> 00:06:11.379 album because they occupied the exact same thematic 00:06:11.379 --> 00:06:13.060 territory. Right, it would have been redundant. 00:06:13.259 --> 00:06:15.459 Yeah, so she famously said she went with Blank 00:06:15.459 --> 00:06:18.600 Space and left the other behind. But she also 00:06:18.600 --> 00:06:22.030 mentioned that the vault track had a very California 00:06:22.030 --> 00:06:24.290 atmosphere. Yes, she did. And she felt that was 00:06:24.290 --> 00:06:27.350 completely out of place for 1989 because that 00:06:27.350 --> 00:06:29.670 album was heavily marketed as her New York City 00:06:29.670 --> 00:06:33.189 record. You know, fast, pulsing, energetic. That 00:06:33.189 --> 00:06:35.329 was the official reasoning. Yes. Well, wait, 00:06:35.670 --> 00:06:37.410 I have to jump in and push back on her stated 00:06:37.410 --> 00:06:39.910 reasoning here. Go for it. Is a California vibe 00:06:39.910 --> 00:06:43.410 like a slightly different geographical mood really 00:06:43.410 --> 00:06:46.410 enough to kill a great song? Or do we think maybe 00:06:46.410 --> 00:06:49.529 a track literally titled with a slur was just 00:06:49.529 --> 00:06:52.250 a bit too risky for her very first foray into 00:06:52.250 --> 00:06:54.790 pure pop. That's a very fair question. Because 00:06:54.790 --> 00:06:56.569 she was transitioning out of country music at 00:06:56.569 --> 00:06:59.689 the time, the stakes were incredibly high. Oh, 00:06:59.930 --> 00:07:02.029 the pressure of branding during a pivotal genre 00:07:02.029 --> 00:07:05.120 transition cannot be overstated. Consider the 00:07:05.120 --> 00:07:07.879 mechanics of blank space. That song approaches 00:07:07.879 --> 00:07:11.240 the media circus with a sardonic smirk. It leans 00:07:11.240 --> 00:07:14.579 entirely into satire. She plays the exaggerated, 00:07:14.620 --> 00:07:17.319 crazy character the media created for her. Right, 00:07:17.439 --> 00:07:19.959 she's in on the joke. Exactly. From a branding 00:07:19.959 --> 00:07:22.620 and marketing perspective, satire is a shield. 00:07:23.000 --> 00:07:25.959 It's a safer, more palatable way to introduce 00:07:25.959 --> 00:07:29.370 her new pop persona to the mainstream. Because 00:07:29.370 --> 00:07:33.629 blank space is like Wink Nod Pop. You can dance 00:07:33.629 --> 00:07:35.790 to it without feeling the emotional weight of 00:07:35.790 --> 00:07:38.209 the actual harassment she was facing. Precisely. 00:07:38.310 --> 00:07:40.449 But putting out a song with a slur is the title. 00:07:40.889 --> 00:07:44.250 There is no wink there. That is a direct unvarnished 00:07:44.250 --> 00:07:46.519 confrontation. And that brings us to the musical 00:07:46.519 --> 00:07:48.860 execution itself, because knowing the title and 00:07:48.860 --> 00:07:51.100 knowing it shares DNA with the loud, theatrical, 00:07:51.319 --> 00:07:53.800 satirical energy of Blank Space, well, it sets 00:07:53.800 --> 00:07:56.300 up a very specific expectation for the listener. 00:07:56.379 --> 00:07:58.579 Totally. You see that title, complete with the 00:07:58.579 --> 00:08:00.680 exclamation point, and you immediately brace 00:08:00.680 --> 00:08:03.220 yourself for a loud, brash, up -tempo, anger 00:08:03.220 --> 00:08:05.100 anthem. You expect something highly aggressive. 00:08:05.339 --> 00:08:08.680 Yeah, exactly. But the musical reality is a total 00:08:08.680 --> 00:08:10.949 bait and switch. She wrote and produced this 00:08:10.949 --> 00:08:13.730 with Jack Ansonoff and Patrick Berger, and what 00:08:13.730 --> 00:08:17.550 they created is exactly three minutes of 1980s 00:08:17.550 --> 00:08:20.790 inspired mid -tempo synth pop. It completely 00:08:20.790 --> 00:08:23.709 subverts the visual volume of the title. The 00:08:23.709 --> 00:08:26.389 production relies on very soft synthesizers, 00:08:26.829 --> 00:08:29.589 atmospheric electronic pads, and incredibly gentle, 00:08:29.709 --> 00:08:32.649 almost breathy backing vocals. It's so smooth. 00:08:32.850 --> 00:08:35.870 It is. It doesn't feature the booming gated drum 00:08:35.870 --> 00:08:38.470 sounds or the sharp driving bass lines you might 00:08:38.470 --> 00:08:42.409 expect from 1989 vault track it's hazy it's a 00:08:42.409 --> 00:08:45.350 dreamy slow -mo power ballad yeah reviewers picked 00:08:45.350 --> 00:08:47.490 up on this immediately they compared its sultry 00:08:47.490 --> 00:08:49.990 late -night haze to her later work on the Midnights 00:08:49.990 --> 00:08:52.549 album specifically the track Maroon yes that 00:08:52.549 --> 00:08:54.909 comparison came up a lot and others heard a very 00:08:54.909 --> 00:08:56.970 strong Lana Del Rey influence in the production 00:08:56.970 --> 00:08:59.090 kind of reminiscent of her song while the streams 00:08:59.090 --> 00:09:01.210 but okay here's where it gets really interesting 00:09:01.210 --> 00:09:03.779 let's hear it The contrast between that aggressive 00:09:03.779 --> 00:09:06.220 shouted title and this incredibly soft intimate 00:09:06.220 --> 00:09:08.980 music is like wrapping a fragile intimate love 00:09:08.980 --> 00:09:11.320 letter in bright yellow caution tape. Oh that's 00:09:11.320 --> 00:09:13.080 a really good way of looking at it. Like setting 00:09:13.080 --> 00:09:15.080 off a fire alarm at the front door to distract 00:09:15.080 --> 00:09:17.200 everyone just so you can have a quiet conversation 00:09:17.200 --> 00:09:20.039 out back. If we connect this to the bigger picture 00:09:20.039 --> 00:09:22.779 that juxtaposition is the true genius of the 00:09:22.779 --> 00:09:25.970 track. The loud, abrasive title acts as a mirror 00:09:25.970 --> 00:09:28.549 reflecting the media's aggressive labeling and 00:09:28.549 --> 00:09:31.490 the chaotic public noise. That is what the outside 00:09:31.490 --> 00:09:34.820 world sounds like. but the gentle, hazy production 00:09:34.820 --> 00:09:38.259 reflects the actual, private reality of the romance 00:09:38.259 --> 00:09:41.460 itself. The music is showing you, mechanically, 00:09:41.899 --> 00:09:44.539 that the relationship persists and remains tender 00:09:44.539 --> 00:09:47.440 to the people inside it, entirely insulated from 00:09:47.440 --> 00:09:50.220 the harshness of the outside world. So the tabloids 00:09:50.220 --> 00:09:51.860 are screaming outside the window, but inside 00:09:51.860 --> 00:09:54.179 the room it's just a slow dance. Exactly. The 00:09:54.179 --> 00:09:57.100 music actively creates the sanctuary that the 00:09:57.100 --> 00:09:59.940 lyrics are searching for. And that intimate sound 00:09:59.940 --> 00:10:02.980 bed really sets the stage for the work. themselves, 00:10:03.580 --> 00:10:05.460 because this is where we get into some seriously 00:10:05.460 --> 00:10:08.179 divided territory among music critics. Yes, the 00:10:08.179 --> 00:10:11.019 critical response was definitely polarized. Specifically 00:10:11.019 --> 00:10:13.179 regarding the song's feminist merits and its 00:10:13.179 --> 00:10:16.259 core message. The lyrical content sparked a fascinating 00:10:16.259 --> 00:10:19.570 debate about what we demand from pop music. To 00:10:19.570 --> 00:10:22.490 break down the lyrics, the song is a direct examination 00:10:22.490 --> 00:10:25.049 of the misogynistic double standards of dating. 00:10:25.309 --> 00:10:27.909 Right. In the second verse, she outlines the 00:10:27.909 --> 00:10:31.250 hypocrisy plainly, singing, everyone wants him, 00:10:31.309 --> 00:10:34.269 that was my crime. And later she adds, I'll pay 00:10:34.269 --> 00:10:37.370 the price. You won't. She is calling out the 00:10:37.370 --> 00:10:40.730 systemic reality that a man being desired makes 00:10:40.730 --> 00:10:43.289 him a catch while a woman being desired or you 00:10:43.289 --> 00:10:45.730 know acting on that desire makes her a target. 00:10:46.009 --> 00:10:48.710 Exactly. Society treats the exact same scenario 00:10:48.710 --> 00:10:51.309 wildly differently based on gender. And there's 00:10:51.309 --> 00:10:53.450 a really cool lyrical parallel to blank space 00:10:53.450 --> 00:10:55.769 hidden in here too. In blank space she sings 00:10:55.769 --> 00:10:58.330 about a rose garden filled with thorns but in 00:10:58.330 --> 00:11:01.350 this vault track the lyric is love thorns all 00:11:01.350 --> 00:11:03.850 over this rose. It's a subtle shift. Yeah it's 00:11:03.850 --> 00:11:06.559 looking at the exact but from a much more internal 00:11:06.559 --> 00:11:09.059 bruised angle. The song also features a subtle 00:11:09.059 --> 00:11:12.759 interpolation, a nod to Beyonce's 2013 hit, Drunk 00:11:12.759 --> 00:11:14.700 in Love, with the lyric, if I'm gonna be drunk, 00:11:14.919 --> 00:11:16.460 might as well be drunk in love. Which is such 00:11:16.460 --> 00:11:19.840 a great nod. It is. It shows it's a song doubly 00:11:19.840 --> 00:11:23.440 aware of its pop culture surroundings. But the 00:11:23.440 --> 00:11:25.940 critical reception to how she handled these themes 00:11:25.940 --> 00:11:28.840 was remarkably split. And we really want to lay 00:11:28.840 --> 00:11:30.899 out both sides of this critical divide for you 00:11:30.899 --> 00:11:34.179 because the debate itself gets to the heart of 00:11:34.179 --> 00:11:37.240 how we consume art. It really does. So on one 00:11:37.240 --> 00:11:40.340 side, you had a camp of reviewers who found the 00:11:40.340 --> 00:11:43.019 song to be a shimmering, incredibly empowering 00:11:43.019 --> 00:11:46.480 reclamation. The argument here is that by taking 00:11:46.480 --> 00:11:49.259 a word used as a weapon against her and singing 00:11:49.259 --> 00:11:52.230 it softly over a beautiful melody, she defangs 00:11:52.230 --> 00:11:54.830 it. Right. Hearing her outright state the word 00:11:54.830 --> 00:11:57.250 in the background vocals takes the power away 00:11:57.250 --> 00:11:59.090 from the critics and hands it back to the artist. 00:11:59.590 --> 00:12:01.929 It's a celebration of being unabashedly in love 00:12:01.929 --> 00:12:03.830 even when you know you are going to be shamed 00:12:03.830 --> 00:12:06.129 for it. Conversely, the counter perspective focused 00:12:06.129 --> 00:12:09.330 on a much more systemic feminist critique. The 00:12:09.330 --> 00:12:11.690 argument from several major cultural publications 00:12:11.690 --> 00:12:14.330 like the New York Times was that the song felt 00:12:14.330 --> 00:12:17.210 a bit half -baked in its execution. Yeah, they 00:12:17.210 --> 00:12:19.649 felt the premise about slut -shaming is certainly 00:12:19.649 --> 00:12:21.870 self -aware, but the critics pointed out that 00:12:21.870 --> 00:12:24.090 the lyrics ultimately center on the salvation 00:12:24.090 --> 00:12:27.230 of romance. Ah, I see. The critique is that the 00:12:27.230 --> 00:12:29.529 song frames the affection of a decent man as 00:12:29.529 --> 00:12:31.970 the ultimate rescue from the systemic scrutiny 00:12:31.970 --> 00:12:35.360 of sexism. The problem as they see it, is that 00:12:35.360 --> 00:12:38.259 a societal ill is being cured by a traditional 00:12:38.259 --> 00:12:40.899 romantic trope. And the musical structure didn't 00:12:40.899 --> 00:12:43.539 work for everyone either. Publications like Pitchfork 00:12:43.539 --> 00:12:46.519 and the LA Times felt it was ambling and aimless. 00:12:46.700 --> 00:12:49.299 Yeah, they felt it lacked the sharp, undeniable 00:12:49.299 --> 00:12:52.019 hook that usually anchors her best pop writing. 00:12:52.220 --> 00:12:55.179 Right. They saw a really strong conceptual idea 00:12:55.179 --> 00:12:58.039 that just didn't quite stick the landing musically. 00:12:58.559 --> 00:13:00.440 They considered it one of the weaker vault tracks. 00:13:00.740 --> 00:13:02.500 So you have a wide spectrum of interpretation. 00:13:02.879 --> 00:13:05.840 For some, it is a triumphant, delicious reclaiming 00:13:05.840 --> 00:13:08.919 of a toxic label. For others, it is a song that 00:13:08.919 --> 00:13:11.519 identifies a massive cultural problem, but relies 00:13:11.519 --> 00:13:14.120 entirely on traditional patriarchal romantic 00:13:14.120 --> 00:13:16.460 structures to find a solution. So what does this 00:13:16.460 --> 00:13:18.700 all mean? I mean, if a song accurately calls 00:13:18.700 --> 00:13:21.480 out a societal double standard? If it points 00:13:21.480 --> 00:13:23.259 at the hypocrisy and says, hey, look at this, 00:13:23.480 --> 00:13:25.659 but still relies on traditional romance for its 00:13:25.659 --> 00:13:28.340 happy ending, does that dilute its power as a 00:13:28.340 --> 00:13:30.620 statement? It's a tough question. Like, does 00:13:30.620 --> 00:13:33.159 a pop song have to dismantle the patriarchy to 00:13:33.159 --> 00:13:35.480 be considered a success? This raises an important 00:13:35.480 --> 00:13:38.259 question about the expectations we place on art 00:13:38.259 --> 00:13:41.899 and specifically on female pop stars. There is 00:13:41.899 --> 00:13:44.879 an inherent... almost unresolvable tension here 00:13:44.879 --> 00:13:47.980 between a personal lived experience and broader 00:13:47.980 --> 00:13:50.820 feminist theory. Right. On a personal level, 00:13:51.159 --> 00:13:53.500 finding a safe haven in a romantic relationship 00:13:53.500 --> 00:13:55.779 while the entire world is attacking you is a 00:13:55.779 --> 00:13:58.840 genuine valid human experience. Escapism is a 00:13:58.840 --> 00:14:01.539 survival tactic. Totally. But from a theoretical 00:14:01.539 --> 00:14:03.980 standpoint, critics desire art that structurally 00:14:03.980 --> 00:14:06.799 dismantles the systemic sexism entirely rather 00:14:06.799 --> 00:14:09.179 than just finding personal shelter from it. It 00:14:09.179 --> 00:14:11.860 really asks you as the listener to consider what 00:14:11.860 --> 00:14:15.200 you personally value more in songwriting. Do 00:14:15.200 --> 00:14:18.159 you value the unfiltered, messy reality of how 00:14:18.159 --> 00:14:20.639 an individual artist survived a specific moment 00:14:20.639 --> 00:14:24.799 in time, or the broader, more perfect ideological 00:14:24.799 --> 00:14:27.120 statement the art could potentially make? It's 00:14:27.120 --> 00:14:29.200 a heavy question to weigh against a three -minute 00:14:29.200 --> 00:14:31.860 synth pop song. I mean, you don't usually turn 00:14:31.860 --> 00:14:35.360 on 80 -style synths to debate structural feminism 00:14:35.360 --> 00:14:38.480 versus empowerment feminism. No, you definitely 00:14:38.480 --> 00:14:40.720 don't. But that's exactly why we do these deep 00:14:40.720 --> 00:14:43.539 dives. because music isn't created in a vacuum. 00:14:44.139 --> 00:14:46.480 The cultural context completely changes how we 00:14:46.480 --> 00:14:48.539 hear the chords. Absolutely. We are listening 00:14:48.539 --> 00:14:51.539 to a document of survival from 2014, finally 00:14:51.539 --> 00:14:54.279 allowed to breathe in 2023. And regardless of 00:14:54.279 --> 00:14:56.279 where you fall in the critical debate, the commercial 00:14:56.279 --> 00:14:59.069 reality of the song's release was undeniably 00:14:59.069 --> 00:15:00.970 massive. When it was finally pushed out into 00:15:00.970 --> 00:15:03.210 the world, released as a single on Apple Music 00:15:03.210 --> 00:15:05.710 on the day the album dropped, and pushed in international 00:15:05.710 --> 00:15:08.169 radio markets, it soared. Oh, it absolutely took 00:15:08.169 --> 00:15:10.029 over the charts. It peaked at number three on 00:15:10.029 --> 00:15:12.210 both the Billboard Global 200 and the Billboard 00:15:12.210 --> 00:15:15.269 Hot 100 in the US. Which is huge for a vault 00:15:15.269 --> 00:15:17.289 track. Right. We are talking about pulling in 00:15:17.289 --> 00:15:20.370 55 million and 27 million streams, respectively, 00:15:20.450 --> 00:15:23.429 in its debut. Yeah. And interestingly, the only 00:15:23.429 --> 00:15:26.330 songs keeping it from the number one spot were 00:15:26.330 --> 00:15:28.679 two of her other vaults. tracks from the exact 00:15:28.679 --> 00:15:31.259 same album she was competing with herself literally 00:15:31.259 --> 00:15:34.559 oh and it hit the top ten in charts all over 00:15:34.559 --> 00:15:37.419 the world Australia Canada Ireland New Zealand 00:15:37.419 --> 00:15:40.590 Singapore the UK It was a global phenomenon. 00:15:40.929 --> 00:15:42.950 She even released a special acoustic version 00:15:42.950 --> 00:15:45.289 on her website for just one day. Oh, I remember 00:15:45.289 --> 00:15:47.909 that. Yeah, stripping away all those hazy synthesizers 00:15:47.909 --> 00:15:50.230 to focus purely on the vocal and the lyrics. 00:15:50.429 --> 00:15:52.730 And she eventually performed it live for the 00:15:52.730 --> 00:15:55.769 first time as a surprise acoustic song during 00:15:55.769 --> 00:15:58.909 her Eras tour in Buenos Aires in November 2023. 00:15:59.269 --> 00:16:01.009 And later mashing it up with other tracks in 00:16:01.009 --> 00:16:02.710 Singapore and Germany, right? Exactly. It wasn't 00:16:02.710 --> 00:16:05.190 just released, it was actively integrated and 00:16:05.190 --> 00:16:07.669 cemented into her live catalog. It really is 00:16:07.669 --> 00:16:11.169 a wild search. journey when you zoom out and 00:16:11.169 --> 00:16:13.929 look at the whole timeline. We've traced this 00:16:13.929 --> 00:16:16.409 song from being a casualty of a toxic media -driven 00:16:16.409 --> 00:16:19.730 narrative back in 2014, to sitting in the dark 00:16:19.730 --> 00:16:23.230 as a discarded demo for nearly a decade, to finally 00:16:23.230 --> 00:16:25.950 being reclaimed, re -recorded, and turned into 00:16:25.950 --> 00:16:29.460 a top three global hit in 2023. It serves as 00:16:29.460 --> 00:16:32.139 a highly visible reminder of the importance of 00:16:32.139 --> 00:16:34.600 owning your own narrative. Yeah. The mechanics 00:16:34.600 --> 00:16:36.700 of the re -recorded project allowed her to take 00:16:36.700 --> 00:16:39.679 control of her master recordings. But more importantly, 00:16:39.799 --> 00:16:41.679 it allowed her to take control of her history. 00:16:42.120 --> 00:16:44.460 Exactly. She refused to let external labels, 00:16:44.500 --> 00:16:46.580 whether it was the tabloid media deciding who 00:16:46.580 --> 00:16:49.919 she was in 2014, or a corporate entity buying 00:16:49.919 --> 00:16:52.419 her life's work in 2019, dictate her internal 00:16:52.419 --> 00:16:55.279 reality or her artistic output. Yeah. She bypassed 00:16:55.279 --> 00:16:57.639 the gatekeepers entirely. It really is the ultimate 00:16:57.639 --> 00:17:00.169 laugh. in the modern music industry. We started 00:17:00.169 --> 00:17:02.230 this deep dive talking about the universal feeling 00:17:02.230 --> 00:17:04.730 of being unfairly judged, of having people decide 00:17:04.730 --> 00:17:06.950 who you are before you even speak. And what we 00:17:06.950 --> 00:17:09.230 found in the source material is that sometimes 00:17:09.230 --> 00:17:12.089 the best response isn't to shout back immediately. 00:17:12.930 --> 00:17:14.930 Sometimes you don't need to release the angry 00:17:14.930 --> 00:17:17.769 anthem. Sometimes the most powerful response 00:17:17.769 --> 00:17:21.410 is to quietly build your own world. own the rights 00:17:21.410 --> 00:17:24.069 to your own work and release your truth when 00:17:24.069 --> 00:17:26.630 the time is absolutely right for you. You let 00:17:26.630 --> 00:17:29.829 the music speak for itself. Regardless of whether 00:17:29.829 --> 00:17:32.529 the world interprets it as a brilliant defiance, 00:17:32.950 --> 00:17:35.509 a flawed narrative, or just a beautiful melody, 00:17:36.250 --> 00:17:38.849 the true power is simply in holding the rights 00:17:38.849 --> 00:17:41.569 to the telling. As we wrap up this deep dive, 00:17:41.650 --> 00:17:43.470 I want to leave you with one final thought to 00:17:43.470 --> 00:17:46.920 mull over. Okay. If an artist's vault is essentially 00:17:46.920 --> 00:17:49.660 a time capsule, their rejected ideas, their alternate 00:17:49.660 --> 00:17:51.859 paths, and the things they were too afraid to 00:17:51.859 --> 00:17:54.380 say out loud at the time, well, it makes you 00:17:54.380 --> 00:17:56.240 wonder about your own history. Oh, that's interesting. 00:17:56.500 --> 00:17:58.380 Yeah. If you could somehow open a vault of your 00:17:58.380 --> 00:18:00.700 own abandoned projects, unspoken thoughts, or 00:18:00.700 --> 00:18:02.440 the paths you didn't take from 10 years ago, 00:18:03.400 --> 00:18:05.519 what would it reveal about the person you were 00:18:05.519 --> 00:18:08.559 trying to become back then? Until next time, 00:18:09.079 --> 00:18:09.819 keep diving deep.