The Hit Song That Meant Nothing

In 1972, an Italian pop singer named Adriano Celentano released one of the strangest hit songs in music history. It was called “Prisencolinensinainciusol,” and if you hear it without knowing anything about it, you might assume you’re listening to an American singer performing in English. The rhythm of the language sounds like English. The cadence sounds like English. The phrasing sounds a lot like English. It has the unmistakable quality of someone singing words you don’t quite understand but somehow feel like you should.

There was just one problem:

It wasn’t English.

In fact, it wasn’t really any language at all.

​

Celentano had deliberately invented a series of nonsense syllables designed to mimic the sound of American English. He was fascinated by the way English sounded to Italians who didn’t speak it, and he wanted to create a song that captured the experience of hearing a language without actually understanding it. And somehow, against all odds, his experiment worked. The song became a massive hit, eventually reaching number one in Italy.

A song that didn’t actually say anything became incredibly popular because it sounded like it was saying something.

In some ways, I wonder if many creative pros are approaching our own version of “Prisencolinensinainciusol.”

Fluency is not meaning (The Posturing Trap)

We are living through an extraordinary moment in which our devices can produce almost anything we ask. Type a prompt and any LLM can respond to an email, spit out a strategy or presentation or marketing campaign, develop a speech or an image, or crank out a dozen ideas before you’ve finished your (first cup of) coffee. And increasingly, the output doesn’t just look competent, it actually sounds competent.

It has the cadence of intelligence.

But there’s a difference between producing something that sounds meaningful and actually having something meaningful to say.

A beautifully written paragraph can contain no original thought just like a polished presentation can communicate no real conviction. A clever strategy can simply rearrange familiar ideas that feel vaguely like something we’d choose but is actually just mimicking popular (and staid) advice.

We can create work that has all the external signals of quality while quietly removing the very thing that makes quality possible: a human being who has wrestled with an idea long enough to develop a perspective on it.

That’s the part that concerns me. We are removing the wrong kinds of friction.

These new tools will almost certainly make us more productive, but the danger is that they might make us so productive that we stop honing and defining our own positions and intuition.

We can produce work that sounds fluent without actually meaning anything of substance.

The struggle gives the meaning (The Plateau Trap)

The strange thing about creative work is that the part we most want to eliminate (because it's uncomfortable) is often the part that makes the work valuable.

The blank page or the terrible first draft or the conversation that goes nowhere. The twenty bad ideas that we toss out before we have a good one. The afternoon spent fruitlessly staring at a problem with nothing to show. The uncomfortable question someone asks in a meeting that forces you to reconsider an assumption you’ve held for years.

None of those things feel particularly productive in the moment. But they are often where our best, most insightful, most intuitive thinking happens.

If we use technology to remove every moment of friction from the creative process, we may accidentally remove the very friction that produces insight.

I’m not arguing that we should reject these tools. Quite the opposite. We should use them aggressively where they genuinely help us.

Let them handle the tedious friction that’s in the way of the work, but not the friction that is the work. We should be careful about outsourcing the parts of the process that are supposed to change us.

The goal of creative work isn’t merely to arrive at an answer, it’s to grow into the kind of person who can see something that wasn’t obvious before. To hone our intuition and judgment.

Standing next to work is not doing it (The Proximity Trap)

This is why I think human-led, intuitive work will become even more valuable in the years ahead. I believe that genuinely human work will begin to stand out more and more because it will contain a point of view, an authenticity (showing “skin in the game”), conviction, taste, judgment, unique experience, and some scars. It will feel like someone actually thought about this.

That’s the irony of Celentano’s strange little song. The words were meaningless, but the idea behind the song was meaningful.

The nonsense was actually communicating something real: what it feels like to hear a language you don’t understand.

This is an important lesson for all of us. We have more tools than ever for making things that sound like they mean something, so our responsibility is to make sure they actually do.

Use the tools, just don’t let them do your thinking for you.

The future won’t belong to the people who can produce the most, it will belong to the people who still have something worth saying.

And, to those who have done the thinking necessary to say it.

Have a great week!

Humanizing Work in the Age of AI (The Infinite Lever)

P.S.  I have a new workshop and keynote about how to ensure we protect the human element of our work in the age of AI. It's about how to establish principles for using new tools while deploying what makes human creativity invaluable. If you think that topic would be a fit for your organization or event, feel free to reach out through toddhenry.com/contact.