Taylor Swift

[Stadler]

Well, no one and nothing is universally liked anymore. That is an impossibility with the existence of social media and Twitter.  If Twitter had been around in 1983, I am sure there would have been a percentage of people who would have found plenty about Michael Jackson and Thriller to bash.  It's what people do.  But like the song says...

I'm going to undermine my entire argument here, but she is easy on the eyes in that clip.

[Stadler]

@Stadler - Come on, dude. 1989, Lover, and Reputation have huge producer songwriters on almost every track. She's part of the machine and it makes sense that when you know that her attempts to play up the indie credentials or act like the "girl next door" don't land for everyone.

Only two things baffle me about the nature of this conversation. One is why you keep bringing up people like Bruce Springsteen who I really do not care about at all and I'm not sure how it's relevant other than to say that "these things are similar" when I was just trying to relate with another poster who said he felt she wasn't genuine sometimes. The other thing is why someone like me can see clearly that Taylor Swift is part of the machine so to speak and still enjoy her while her big fans in this thread can't. Just baffles my mind. I think I've said my piece here though. If you'd like to talk more via DM or Kev would like to DM me and call me a dummy in so many words or something like that, more than welcome.

For the record, you're not a dummy.   But the bold is the problem in the nutshell.  I don't follow playing the "it's subjective" card, then hearing something like that.   I'm no "fan boy" - for fuck's sake, I'm a 53 year old father of four - but I've been around enough to know that ANY musician that regularly tours stadia is "part of the machine" by default.  You cannot operate on that level without being in the machine.   That's why I keep bringing up Springsteen.  Once you're out of the "releasing CDs for sale at your shows in small clubs", you're part of the machine.   Artists have to pick their battles; some maintain their "purity" with the songs themselves, some with the shows, some with the distribution of their music, whatever.  I just don't see how using Max Martin somehow voids the validity of her art.  I also use Springsteen as an example because I believe - sincerely - that she's on track to be her generation's Springsteen (who is our greatest living American artist right now, even over Dylan) and again, using Max Martin doesn't change that, any more than Springsteen's mid-80's records undermine his claim.

I didn't want to continue participating in this thread but I will respond to this just because of how genuinely tilted you are coming across.

So let me be clear that nowhere did I say any of this invalidates Taylor's art, you can look all you want for that in my postings but you won't find anywhere I said that. It all just makes it more understandable that certain things she does strike some people as inauthentic.

I'm lost. You're the one saying you see things clearly and others don't, and I'm just saying "it's impossible to tell one way or the other", and I'm not sure how that's "tilted".   I'm in the process of ripping my CDs and DVDs to hard drive, and I'm literally doing U2 right now (or did last night).  I have all their albums, a couple of their singles/compilations, and about half of their DVDs.  EVERY SINGLE criticism you've leveled at Taylor Swift you can credibly say about U2, especially their latter day albums.    Yet, other than a small smattering of Bono-haters, very few people doubt their artistic integrity or their "authenticity".  I don't see much difference between the two artists in this regard.

[KevShmev]

I'm lost. You're the one saying you see things clearly and others don't, and I'm just saying "it's impossible to tell one way or the other", and I'm not sure how that's "tilted".   I'm in the process of ripping my CDs and DVDs to hard drive, and I'm literally doing U2 right now (or did last night).  I have all their albums, a couple of their singles/compilations, and about half of their DVDs.  EVERY SINGLE criticism you've leveled at Taylor Swift you can credibly say about U2, especially their latter day albums.    Yet, other than a small smattering of Bono-haters, very few people doubt their artistic integrity or their "authenticity".  I don't see much difference between the two artists in this regard.

Honestly, while I doubt it is a conscious thing Skeever or a few others are doing, it is kind of their thing for many* rock fans to find a way to denigrate anything a (perceived) pop star does.  I knew a guy years ago who talked about how great Neutral Milk Hotel was, and then trashed Madonna saying, "She couldn't sing."  Um, and the guy from Neutral Milk Hotel can?  But since Madonna is pop and they are rock, it is somehow different.  The standard are never the same.

*Note: not all.

And I am not immune to this phenomenon.  As a rock fan, I know I am guilty of giving a rock band the benefit of the doubt of most things than I would a pop artist. 

[Stadler]

I'm not immune to that either, and honestly I probably still do it for other artists.  I'm not here to defend the artistic integrity of, say, Billie Eyelash, because IMO she hasn't amassed the body of work that Swift has. Like Patrick Mahomes, give her a few years.  I think that's why I'm arguing this so much; MY standard is higher too, and Swift STILL passes the test.

[KevShmev]

I'm not immune to that either, and honestly I probably still do it for other artists.  I'm not here to defend the artistic integrity of, say, Billie Eyelash, because IMO she hasn't amassed the body of work that Swift has. Like Patrick Mahomes, give her a few years.  I think that's why I'm arguing this so much; MY standard is higher too, and Swift STILL passes the test.

Agreed.

And the door swings both ways, too, as I have known people over the years who are mainly fans of pop/mainstream music who always think their favorites are better than yours because they sell more records, have more hits, etc. (as if music is a contest).  And, as well all know, it is rarely that simple.

And hey, as a longtime rock fan, yeah, it can be a sore spot to see artists we consider great not get any real recognition by the masses (see: Neal Morse), while ones we feel are far less deserving get a ton, but no one ever said life was fair, right? 

[425]

I haven't been following this thread religiously because I still haven't listened to either of the 2020 albums (I'm still pretty sensitive about certain styles of music after a personal tragedy, and indie pop is definitely one of those styles). But I just went through the last page and a half or so and I do think I have a general point to contribute:

I think "authenticity" in music is really hard to measure. I don't mean to say that there's not a genuine distinction between authentic and inauthentic music, because I think there definitely, definitely is, but that it's often hard to tell as an outsider who is being authentic and who isn't.

To me, an artist is being authentic when they are writing and performing music that they judge to be worthy, that fits their standards, that is something they themselves like and want to hear. They are being inauthentic when they are writing and performing music because of other considerations, usually because they think a certain style will take them on the fast track to fame and wealth, in disregard of their own standards and preferences. What this means is that to know whether an artist is being authentic or not, we have to have some understanding of their motivations. Sometimes we can get this from interview or statements: "I recorded this song because I thought it would be a hit" or "I didn't care if this would be popular, I just wanted to do a song I really love." Of course, in the latter case, we have to wonder if an artist is always being authentic when we say something like that. And when they're being inauthentic, it's rarely as explicit as the former statement. For example, bands sometimes say, "We just wanted to do a record that the fans would really love," which can easily be interpreted as an inauthentic statement, but it may not accurately reflect all of what's going on.

So even when an artist is directly telling you about their motivations, it can be challenging to discern what those motivations really are. But many people think they can discern an artist's motivations based on even less evidence, which I find very implausible. A singer works with a songwriter known for writing hits. Does that mean she's being inauthentic and going for popularity instead of following her personal standards? I say, no, it does not. What if she really likes many of those hits, thinks this writer is very talented with a style she likes a lot, and she thinks that he can help her write the type of music she would love to hear and love to sing? That is a motivation I would call authentic, just as authentic as the motivation behind a prog band that writes a 20-minute epic full of guitar noodling because that's the type of music they would love to hear and love to play. Same issue with a band who cuts their hair and starts dressing more fashionably. Are they trying to make themselves more appealing to record executives and MTV audiences? Or do they want to try out a different look? One motivation is inauthentic, the other is authentic, and it's difficult to tell which.

In sum: I think it's really difficult to tell a lot of the time when someone is actually being inauthentic, and a lot of music fans are, in my opinion, too quick to judge artists, especially pop singers, as inauthentic based on evidence that is entirely insufficient.

[Stadler]

Good points.  I think for me, I had to sort of come to grips with the phases of music.   And again I cite Bruce Springsteen. He's been, over the years, very aggressive about the marketing of his career. He's not shy about pushing his music on the masses.  But there's little doubt that the music itself is made with love and sincerity.   So that invites the question: does the aggressive marketing and sale of music that is made with integrity undermine that integrity?  I don't think it does, frankly, and that's sort of why I'm able to look past Swift's forays into the marketing universe.  I honestly don't think she IS writing songs to just "move a million units", or as a result of "strategizing an advantageous market position".   I think Eminem falls into this group as well.  He's sold a brazilian records (he has two diamond records) and is certainly no stranger to a good marketing approach, but his music rings with an authenticity that is hard to discredit.

[KevShmev]

I haven't been following this thread religiously because I still haven't listened to either of the 2020 albums (I'm still pretty sensitive about certain styles of music after a personal tragedy, and indie pop is definitely one of those styles). But I just went through the last page and a half or so and I do think I have a general point to contribute:

I think "authenticity" in music is really hard to measure. I don't mean to say that there's not a genuine distinction between authentic and inauthentic music, because I think there definitely, definitely is, but that it's often hard to tell as an outsider who is being authentic and who isn't.

To me, an artist is being authentic when they are writing and performing music that they judge to be worthy, that fits their standards, that is something they themselves like and want to hear. They are being inauthentic when they are writing and performing music because of other considerations, usually because they think a certain style will take them on the fast track to fame and wealth, in disregard of their own standards and preferences. What this means is that to know whether an artist is being authentic or not, we have to have some understanding of their motivations. Sometimes we can get this from interview or statements: "I recorded this song because I thought it would be a hit" or "I didn't care if this would be popular, I just wanted to do a song I really love." Of course, in the latter case, we have to wonder if an artist is always being authentic when we say something like that. And when they're being inauthentic, it's rarely as explicit as the former statement. For example, bands sometimes say, "We just wanted to do a record that the fans would really love," which can easily be interpreted as an inauthentic statement, but it may not accurately reflect all of what's going on.

So even when an artist is directly telling you about their motivations, it can be challenging to discern what those motivations really are. But many people think they can discern an artist's motivations based on even less evidence, which I find very implausible. A singer works with a songwriter known for writing hits. Does that mean she's being inauthentic and going for popularity instead of following her personal standards? I say, no, it does not. What if she really likes many of those hits, thinks this writer is very talented with a style she likes a lot, and she thinks that he can help her write the type of music she would love to hear and love to sing? That is a motivation I would call authentic, just as authentic as the motivation behind a prog band that writes a 20-minute epic full of guitar noodling because that's the type of music they would love to hear and love to play. Same issue with a band who cuts their hair and starts dressing more fashionably. Are they trying to make themselves more appealing to record executives and MTV audiences? Or do they want to try out a different look? One motivation is inauthentic, the other is authentic, and it's difficult to tell which.

In sum: I think it's really difficult to tell a lot of the time when someone is actually being inauthentic, and a lot of music fans are, in my opinion, too quick to judge artists, especially pop singers, as inauthentic based on evidence that is entirely insufficient.

So, again,

Great post!! 

To me, saying, "I think this artist is fake," is a much harsher criticism than, "I don't like this artist's music is good."  Accusations of being fake or inauthentic seem below the belt, especially since it is impossible to get inside the head of the artist and know what their true intent was. 

In the case of Taylor Swift working with, say, Max Martin and Shellback, I think it's clear that she wanted to take her music in a more poppy direction at the time, so she worked with a couple of producers who were known for getting the most out of pop songs and smoothing out any rough edges to make the hooks work better.  What is wrong with that? 

In the case of Folklore, which came first, she all but said she had no idea how it would be received by fans and critics (and she cares deeply about reaction from both, probably too much to be honest), but she make the album and put it out anyway, because it was the album she was feeling and wanted to do. That seems very real to me.  Had it been the opposite, I doubt I would have been drawn to her music like I have been.  Anyone who knows me knows I have little to no interest in most modern pop and hardly any modern country, so there has to be a reason why the music of Taylor Swift is suddenly taking up a lot of time in my CD player, right?

[HOF]

I don’t have much of a dog in the Taylor Swift debate. I appreciate a lot of her music even if it’s not necessarily my thing. My kids (via my wife) are starting to get into her and it is weird hearing them connect with her almost immediately in a way they don’t connect with the music I listen to (they call it “Dad music” and the other day they told someone “Dad listens to ancient rock music.” Kids!). There’s a draw for them, even for the older songs that came out before they were born. It doesn’t have anything to do with her popularity, they don’t really know about that or other contemporary music. I do think there is something about it that makes it sort of made for them, in a way that a lot of the music I listen to isn’t.  That’s not to say they don’t like anything I listen to. I caught them singing a Journey song the other day that I had put on a mix CD to listen to in the car. Score for Dad!

I don’t know where I’m going with any of this. I think the major pop writers and artists know how to engage with a broad audience. I also think to an extent the record industry has learned how to boil songwriting and production down to a bit of a cold, heartless science. But there is some middle ground there where you can still be authentic while also knowing how to write in a style or format that connects with people.

[KevShmev]

I don’t have much of a dog in the Taylor Swift debate. I appreciate a lot of her music even if it’s not necessarily my thing. My kids (via my wife) are starting to get into her and it is weird hearing them connect with her almost immediately in a way they don’t connect with the music I listen to (they call it “Dad music” and the other day they told someone “Dad listens to ancient rock music.” Kids!). There’s a draw for them, even for the older songs that came out before they were born. It doesn’t have anything to do with her popularity, they don’t really know about that or other contemporary music. I do think there is something about it that makes it sort of made for them, in a way that a lot of the music I listen to isn’t.  That’s not to say they don’t like anything I listen to. I caught them singing a Journey song the other day that I had put on a mix CD to listen to in the car. Score for Dad!

I don’t know where I’m going with any of this. I think the major pop writers and artists know how to engage with a broad audience. I also think to an extent the record industry has learned how to boil songwriting and production down to a bit of a cold, heartless science. But there is some middle ground there where you can still be authentic while also knowing how to write in a style or format that connects with people.

I think it is undeniable at this point that she connects with audiences in a way that cannot be explained.  Some just have that "it" factor.  I read comments a while back from a guy around my age who has been a fan since her early days and said he saw her on the Fearless tour (2008-2009, I guess) and was stunned at how loud the screaming was for her by fans (think of those early Beatles clips, or when the girls scream at Johnny Fontana when he is singing at the beginning of The Godfather).  And it is obviously stunned her back then as well as you can find countless clips of her looked surprised at how loud fans would cheer for her at certain moments (I don't think she gives those looks anymore as I am sure she has realized by now how much how her fans adore her).  Zantera said the other day about her newest albums that "there's hundreds of other bands/artists doing similar things and it doesn't really stand out among it" and that very might well be true, but I am guessing those hundreds of other artists do not connect with crowds like she does.  I can't explain it.  No one can.  It just happens.   It is like watching Bono or Freddie Mercury on stage connecting with a crowd and getting them worked up into a frenzy.  You can't explain it.  Some people just have that "it" factor.

[Zook]

I think it's mostly the lyrical content. Love songs and break up songs are very relatable.

[KevShmev]

I think it's mostly the lyrical content. Love songs and break up songs are very relatable.

You may be right, but I think it's more on a micro level than a macro one.  It's not like she is the first to write a lot of breakup/relationship songs, but she gets so detailed with specifics and metaphors and whatnot in them that it makes them far more relatable than the ones that speak in more general terms.  While she certainly has her share of misfires (ME!, anyone ), I think writing lyrics is perhaps her greatest strength. 

[MirrorMask]

I wonder if her eventual suitors are "scared" by this. What outweights what - the benefits of getting it on with Taylor, or the risk of being outed in a song as a selfish asshole? 

(Also going on a hopefully not too serious tangent - with breakups, I think only 20/30% of cases are situations where one of the two is a clear and definitive asshole. All the other cases are simply two people who were not a match and whose points of view on things were different enough to cause the split, with both being "right" from their own point of view and according to their life values, which makes nasty breakup songs a bit corny at times.... maybe he was not the devil who took advantage of you, maybe you two just weren't a good match, take for example the guy of Mr. Perfectly Fine, I don't believe that the character described in the song could have a chance with Sophie Turner if he were literally like everything the song says!)

[KevShmev]

I wonder if her eventual suitors are "scared" by this. What outweights what - the benefits of getting it on with Taylor, or the risk of being outed in a song as a selfish asshole? 

I think he has been with the same guy now for like 4+ years, but I know she was once joked that any new suitor were told up front that they were fodder for a song if things ever went sour.   I suspect many guys wouldn't care, and would actually consider it a badge of honor to have a song written about them if it is one that is not, shall we say, overly positive.

(Also going on a hopefully not too serious tangent - with breakups, I think only 20/30% of cases are situations where one of the two is a clear and definitive asshole. All the other cases are simply two people who were not a match and whose points of view on things were different enough to cause the split, with both being "right" from their own point of view and according to their life values, which makes nasty breakup songs a bit corny at times.... maybe he was not the devil who took advantage of you, maybe you two just weren't a good match, take for example the guy of Mr. Perfectly Fine, I don't believe that the character described in the song could have a chance with Sophie Turner if he were literally like everything the song says!)

Very true, but I am guessing she wrote some of those breakup songs when the breakup was pretty fresh and still pretty hurtful, and who is really that objective about it then? Even if years later she could look back and say, "Yeah, he did this and that wrong, but I did this and that wrong, too," at the time she wrote it, she was probably still in that hurtful "it's all his fault!" phase.  I am guessing since Mr. Perfectly Fine was written back then and never released, that she kept all of the lyrics as is when recording it for this year's release.  If you watch the clip from Ellen right after the breakup with Joe Jonas (when she was, what, 18?), she seems pretty stung and hurt by it still, and throws out the comment about him breaking up with her in 20-something second phone call.  To her credit, years later she expressed regret for putting him on blast like that.  I am sure we all did something stupid shit when we were teenagers that we wish we could take back. 

[Stadler]

I don’t have much of a dog in the Taylor Swift debate. I appreciate a lot of her music even if it’s not necessarily my thing. My kids (via my wife) are starting to get into her and it is weird hearing them connect with her almost immediately in a way they don’t connect with the music I listen to (they call it “Dad music” and the other day they told someone “Dad listens to ancient rock music.” Kids!). There’s a draw for them, even for the older songs that came out before they were born. It doesn’t have anything to do with her popularity, they don’t really know about that or other contemporary music. I do think there is something about it that makes it sort of made for them, in a way that a lot of the music I listen to isn’t.  That’s not to say they don’t like anything I listen to. I caught them singing a Journey song the other day that I had put on a mix CD to listen to in the car. Score for Dad!

I don’t know where I’m going with any of this. I think the major pop writers and artists know how to engage with a broad audience. I also think to an extent the record industry has learned how to boil songwriting and production down to a bit of a cold, heartless science. But there is some middle ground there where you can still be authentic while also knowing how to write in a style or format that connects with people.

Can I pick at you a little bit, but respectfully?   I had to think this through, but I realized that the "mistake" (in quotes because it's not really a "mistake", more an illogical leap) is that YOU aren't a "broad audience".   Think about YOU for a second; do you care what anyone else likes when you listen to a piece of music and decide whether you like it or not?    I know I don't!  It's visceral.  So why is it any different for someone else?   Especially with my kids, it became harder and harder to look at them as nameless, faceless drones who follow the latest trends.   My kid felt that music - mainly One Direction and Taylor Swift - every bit as much as I felt, say, Hallowed Be Thy Name or Deuce back in the day.   We can't keep dismissing certain music as "made for the masses" ONLY because it sells a lot.   Who has more integrity in their music:  Taylor Swift, or Metallica? The first four Swift albums sold 39 million in the US; Metallica from RtL through TBA sold.... drum roll please...  39 million.

I think the problem is in the preconception that somehow JUST BECAUSE music sells, it's geared for the lowest common denominator.   SOME music that sells is, but there's an echelon of music, the rarest of the rare, that is BOTH:  music of integrity, feeling and made with honesty AND which connects to a broad number of people.  I just don't believe that that is ultimately, deep down, the desire of most artists, to be true to themselves and yet still connect with other people.  That's why they release music!  To connect! 

[HOF]

I don’t have much of a dog in the Taylor Swift debate. I appreciate a lot of her music even if it’s not necessarily my thing. My kids (via my wife) are starting to get into her and it is weird hearing them connect with her almost immediately in a way they don’t connect with the music I listen to (they call it “Dad music” and the other day they told someone “Dad listens to ancient rock music.” Kids!). There’s a draw for them, even for the older songs that came out before they were born. It doesn’t have anything to do with her popularity, they don’t really know about that or other contemporary music. I do think there is something about it that makes it sort of made for them, in a way that a lot of the music I listen to isn’t.  That’s not to say they don’t like anything I listen to. I caught them singing a Journey song the other day that I had put on a mix CD to listen to in the car. Score for Dad!

I don’t know where I’m going with any of this. I think the major pop writers and artists know how to engage with a broad audience. I also think to an extent the record industry has learned how to boil songwriting and production down to a bit of a cold, heartless science. But there is some middle ground there where you can still be authentic while also knowing how to write in a style or format that connects with people.

Can I pick at you a little bit, but respectfully?   I had to think this through, but I realized that the "mistake" (in quotes because it's not really a "mistake", more an illogical leap) is that YOU aren't a "broad audience".   Think about YOU for a second; do you care what anyone else likes when you listen to a piece of music and decide whether you like it or not?    I know I don't!  It's visceral.  So why is it any different for someone else?   Especially with my kids, it became harder and harder to look at them as nameless, faceless drones who follow the latest trends.   My kid felt that music - mainly One Direction and Taylor Swift - every bit as much as I felt, say, Hallowed Be Thy Name or Deuce back in the day.   We can't keep dismissing certain music as "made for the masses" ONLY because it sells a lot.   Who has more integrity in their music:  Taylor Swift, or Metallica? The first four Swift albums sold 39 million in the US; Metallica from RtL through TBA sold.... drum roll please...  39 million.

I think the problem is in the preconception that somehow JUST BECAUSE music sells, it's geared for the lowest common denominator.   SOME music that sells is, but there's an echelon of music, the rarest of the rare, that is BOTH:  music of integrity, feeling and made with honesty AND which connects to a broad number of people.  I just don't believe that that is ultimately, deep down, the desire of most artists, to be true to themselves and yet still connect with other people.  That's why they release music!  To connect! 

Your last point is pretty much what I was trying to say.

I don’t think it’s bad at all that TS can connect with a broad audience (which would include me. I love a good pop song as much as a good prog song or whatever). I was trying to express admiration for that. I do think the audience for a prog epic or metal is inherently smaller than for a pop song, but there’s nothing wrong with that, just different.

At the same time I do think there are artists and record companies who are just trying to follow a formula for what sells, and that can be a bad thing (and it’s not just a pop phenomena. Heck, I think DT have done this at times). The biggest danger is that you stop having artists who try new things and take risks and you end up with lots of same sounding music. Not that there won’t always be artists who buck trends, but I do think this is more of an issue now than back in the 70s, 80s, or 90s probably.

[Stadler]

I don’t have much of a dog in the Taylor Swift debate. I appreciate a lot of her music even if it’s not necessarily my thing. My kids (via my wife) are starting to get into her and it is weird hearing them connect with her almost immediately in a way they don’t connect with the music I listen to (they call it “Dad music” and the other day they told someone “Dad listens to ancient rock music.” Kids!). There’s a draw for them, even for the older songs that came out before they were born. It doesn’t have anything to do with her popularity, they don’t really know about that or other contemporary music. I do think there is something about it that makes it sort of made for them, in a way that a lot of the music I listen to isn’t.  That’s not to say they don’t like anything I listen to. I caught them singing a Journey song the other day that I had put on a mix CD to listen to in the car. Score for Dad!

I don’t know where I’m going with any of this. I think the major pop writers and artists know how to engage with a broad audience. I also think to an extent the record industry has learned how to boil songwriting and production down to a bit of a cold, heartless science. But there is some middle ground there where you can still be authentic while also knowing how to write in a style or format that connects with people.

Can I pick at you a little bit, but respectfully?   I had to think this through, but I realized that the "mistake" (in quotes because it's not really a "mistake", more an illogical leap) is that YOU aren't a "broad audience".   Think about YOU for a second; do you care what anyone else likes when you listen to a piece of music and decide whether you like it or not?    I know I don't!  It's visceral.  So why is it any different for someone else?   Especially with my kids, it became harder and harder to look at them as nameless, faceless drones who follow the latest trends.   My kid felt that music - mainly One Direction and Taylor Swift - every bit as much as I felt, say, Hallowed Be Thy Name or Deuce back in the day.   We can't keep dismissing certain music as "made for the masses" ONLY because it sells a lot.   Who has more integrity in their music:  Taylor Swift, or Metallica? The first four Swift albums sold 39 million in the US; Metallica from RtL through TBA sold.... drum roll please...  39 million.

I think the problem is in the preconception that somehow JUST BECAUSE music sells, it's geared for the lowest common denominator.   SOME music that sells is, but there's an echelon of music, the rarest of the rare, that is BOTH:  music of integrity, feeling and made with honesty AND which connects to a broad number of people.  I just don't believe that that is ultimately, deep down, the desire of most artists, to be true to themselves and yet still connect with other people.  That's why they release music!  To connect! 

Your last point is pretty much what I was trying to say.

I don’t think it’s bad at all that TS can connect with a broad audience (which would include me. I love a good pop song as much as a good prog song or whatever). I was trying to express admiration for that. I do think the audience for a prog epic or metal is inherently smaller than for a pop song, but there’s nothing wrong with that, just different.

At the same time I do think there are artists and record companies who are just trying to follow a formula for what sells, and that can be a bad thing (and it’s not just a pop phenomena. Heck, I think DT have done this at times). The biggest danger is that you stop having artists who try new things and take risks and you end up with lots of same sounding music. Not that there won’t always be artists who buck trends, but I do think this is more of an issue now than back in the 70s, 80s, or 90s probably.

I think the last paragraph is certainly true; I think the numbers obscure the prevalence here:  my opinion only, but there are bands in every genre that are less about making music that is "true" than making music that "fits the brand"; they just don't sell enough for it to be blatantly obvious. I'm going to offend here, but Motley Crue falls in that category.  I don't get much out of Vince Neil that doesn't scream "BRAND!".  I don't listen to a ton of prog outside of the mainstream - Genesis, Yes, Crimson, Neal Morse, Marillion - so I can't say if there are artists that are more interested in pandering than expressing, but I'm sure they are there.  IMO, the metal commmunity is chock full of bands along these lines.

[HOF]

I think the last paragraph is certainly true; I think the numbers obscure the prevalence here:  my opinion only, but there are bands in every genre that are less about making music that is "true" than making music that "fits the brand"; they just don't sell enough for it to be blatantly obvious. I'm going to offend here, but Motley Crue falls in that category.  I don't get much out of Vince Neil that doesn't scream "BRAND!".  I don't listen to a ton of prog outside of the mainstream - Genesis, Yes, Crimson, Neal Morse, Marillion - so I can't say if there are artists that are more interested in pandering than expressing, but I'm sure they are there.  IMO, the metal commmunity is chock full of bands along these lines.

I think it’s prevalent in most every genre. There are definitely prog artists who follow a formula as well (I might catch flack but John Mitchell strikes me a bit that way). Even Marillion, who I love, I think would admit they tailor their music to their audiences’ expectations to some extent.

[MoraWintersoul]

I definitely lean more towards the "Taylor is authentic" side of the debate. If you look at a select set of facts - parents moved her to Nashville, was acquired by a label her father invested in, has other songwriters on some of the biggest hits - you can argue that she is just as inauthentic as any other pop star, but when you learn a bit about the lore behind her, she is probably the most homegrown a major artist has ever been, and that's where that reputation comes from.

It's true she started as young as she did because her parents had the means to tell her to quit school and focus on her career and invest in her future, but her early successes in country music were mostly due to her investing time and labor, not her label's marketing - she was literally the one burning CDs to send to radio stations with boxes of cookies she made, she was writing back to people on MySpace and adopted every social network very early to talk directly to her fans. Her producers have songwriting credits because she worked with people who think building a track from melodies she wrote on the piano and guitar should earn them a songwriting credit along with a producing credit - those songs would have still existed otherwise, as you can see from those demo and recording sessions of Reputation, that video of Taylor working out a demo for ME! on the piano (where she gave Joel Little and Brendon Urie songwriting credits for building the track and writing some words), interviews of all songwriters and producers from 1989 and prior where we may not have videos but they confirm pretty much all they do is polish the song, or the fact that songs she wrote by herself have the same style, melodies and structures as the songs other people have songwriting credits on. Even when she's writing to a track like with Aaron Dessner, she works out all the vocal melodies herself. Jack Antonoff is now a respected producer, but Taylor is the first person who gave him a chance to do that - he's using skills he built and his signature sound that they honed together to work for other artists now. He would have been a guy in bands otherwise.

Taylor is marketed like every other pop star now, and she's done a lot of things that imo demean her artistry (using her personal life for marketing and then marketing how sad she was that the press took the bait and wrote about her personal life, pumping out whatever merch at exorbitant prices because her team knows her fans buy anything, playing the streaming game, always multiple versions of everything, talking a big game about feminism and raising up female artists but never mentioning her direct competition and almost only working with male artists and never having another female voice on her songs as a second lead but plenty of men), and it's also blatantly true that if she wasn't beautiful, tall, blonde, smart and precocious, all those Nashville execs would have looked at her and said "okay, you can write songs for the stars" instead of "kid, you're gonna be a star". But her artistry is as legit as any metal songwriter I love and appreciate and she is as homegrown as your average metal band who made it on the strength of their MySpace and fostering good, direct connections with the media and fans.

[KevShmev]

I definitely lean more towards the "Taylor is authentic" side of the debate. If you look at a select set of facts - parents moved her to Nashville, was acquired by a label her father invested in, has other songwriters on some of the biggest hits - you can argue that she is just as inauthentic as any other pop star, but when you learn a bit about the lore behind her, she is probably the most homegrown a major artist has ever been, and that's where that reputation comes from.

It's true she started as young as she did because her parents had the means to tell her to quit school and focus on her career and invest in her future, but her early successes in country music were mostly due to her investing time and labor, not her label's marketing - she was literally the one burning CDs to send to radio stations with boxes of cookies she made, she was writing back to people on MySpace and adopted every social network very early to talk directly to her fans. Her producers have songwriting credits because she worked with people who think building a track from melodies she wrote on the piano and guitar should earn them a songwriting credit along with a producing credit - those songs would have still existed otherwise, as you can see from those demo and recording sessions of Reputation, that video of Taylor working out a demo for ME! on the piano (where she gave Joel Little and Brendon Urie songwriting credits for building the track and writing some words), interviews of all songwriters and producers from 1989 and prior where we may not have videos but they confirm pretty much all they do is polish the song, or the fact that songs she wrote by herself have the same style, melodies and structures as the songs other people have songwriting credits on. Even when she's writing to a track like with Aaron Dessner, she works out all the vocal melodies herself. Jack Antonoff is now a respected producer, but Taylor is the first person who gave him a chance to do that - he's using skills he built and his signature sound that they honed together to work for other artists now. He would have been a guy in bands otherwise.

Taylor is marketed like every other pop star now, and she's done a lot of things that imo demean her artistry (using her personal life for marketing and then marketing how sad she was that the press took the bait and wrote about her personal life, pumping out whatever merch at exorbitant prices because her team knows her fans buy anything, playing the streaming game, always multiple versions of everything, talking a big game about feminism and raising up female artists but never mentioning her direct competition and almost only working with male artists and never having another female voice on her songs as a second lead but plenty of men), and it's also blatantly true that if she wasn't beautiful, tall, blonde, smart and precocious, all those Nashville execs would have looked at her and said "okay, you can write songs for the stars" instead of "kid, you're gonna be a star". But her artistry is as legit as any metal songwriter I love and appreciate and she is as homegrown as your average metal band who made it on the strength of their MySpace and fostering good, direct connections with the media and fans.

This all seems pretty fair.

I grimace a little at the lyrics to The Man.  Yes, most of what she says in the song is probably pretty accurate, but as you said, I think it is definitely true that she wouldn't have been given the chance she was back in the day if she wasn't so tall and cute and precocious (great word to use!).  I like the fact that she doesn't do overly sexualized videos or shoots or anything like that.  The shaking in Shake It Off is probably the most risque move she does, and that's like a 1.5 out of 10 by today's standards on the risque scale.

But not sure I agree about the feminism thing.  She has mentioned plenty of other female artists before (see: her woman of the decade speech where she name checked like 10+ current female music artists). 

I get the annoyance with artists overcharging for everything because "their fans are so hardcore that you know they will pay it," but that is playing the game. Heck, Neal Morse does the exact same thing, he just does it with a smaller fanbase.  And like I always say, if the price is too high, no one is forcing you to buy it. I am someone who doesn't feel the need to own everything all of my favorites release, so if prices get out of control, I do not buy it and move on.  Many others do not have that kind of self-control, and I suppose that is where artists like Neal and Taylor profit.

[MoraWintersoul]

But not sure I agree about the feminism thing.  She has mentioned plenty of other female artists before (see: her woman of the decade speech where she name checked like 10+ current female music artists). 

That was kind of an uncharacteristic moment for her, except for a few personal friends she has among colleagues, most of the time she's kind of politely pretending other women in pop music don't exist. I'm sure it's a conscious decision leftover from the time when people used to compare her to other female artists just to insult her and she just kind of wants to chill in her own corner and not be asked about why she associates with this person and not that person, but she could stand to actually work and collaborate with women in music a little more nowadays, if it's such a big deal to her.

It's interesting what you mentioned about The Man - people go as far as to say she wouldn't have even had a career if she was a man, and, you guys... Ed Sheeran exists and sells even more in some markets, and last I checked, he doesn't have to do his hair every time he walks out the door and doesn't have to endure misogynistic bullying, so score one for the man. At the same time, it's hard to take that song seriously. Sure, people would like you more if you were a man, but you have several mansions because people do like you. I was afraid that the documentary Miss Americana would be all about how "it's so hard, you guys" to be a pop star and I'm glad it was a bit more about Taylor as a person, and it did shine a light on the genuinely hard aspects of her job.

[Stadler]

I get the annoyance with artists overcharging for everything because "their fans are so hardcore that you know they will pay it," but that is playing the game. Heck, Neal Morse does the exact same thing, he just does it with a smaller fanbase.  And like I always say, if the price is too high, no one is forcing you to buy it. I am someone who doesn't feel the need to own everything all of my favorites release, so if prices get out of control, I do not buy it and move on.  Many others do not have that kind of self-control, and I suppose that is where artists like Neal and Taylor profit.

I agree with this 10000% percent.  Let the people choose.  I know my daughter is on the fringes of that.   She's not succumbed to much of it (though I bought her the four versions of Lover for xmas, because I thought it would be neat to have her open four different things).   But she DID buy the autographed version of Evermore, and it was a fucking neat package:  it came in the CD post holder, and was resealed, but there was a little note in there, and some paper stars which sound corny, but I can imagine it was neat for her to open that and feel a part of it.  Like I did when I opened Kiss albums and found the poster books (like in Alive! and Alive II).

[MirrorMask]

The law of demand and offer applies to everything. Literally everything, why there are narcos? because people buy cocaine. The day the world population collectively decides that cocaine is bad, narcos are out of a job. Why pay-per-view adult content exist? because people pay for them, otherwise there wouldn't be no market. Same with music, special editions, meet n' greets...

Was John Petrucci right or wrong in launching his wine? he sold out all the bottles, so he was right. If nobody would have bought them, he would have made a wrong move. He sold them all, so he was right.

[KevShmev]

That was kind of an uncharacteristic moment for her, except for a few personal friends she has among colleagues, most of the time she's kind of politely pretending other women in pop music don't exist. I'm sure it's a conscious decision leftover from the time when people used to compare her to other female artists just to insult her and she just kind of wants to chill in her own corner and not be asked about why she associates with this person and not that person, but she could stand to actually work and collaborate with women in music a little more nowadays, if it's such a big deal to her.

Hmmm, I haven't been following her long enough to speak intelligently about all of that, but I haven't really noticed it.  She let two current female pop stars (Camila Cabello and Halsey) not only share the stage with her during the Shake It Off part of her Artist of the Decade performance in 2019, but let both take a lead vocal during the one verse that was sung.  That seemed pretty cool to me.

[Melphina]

From Taylor Swift's Facebook:

"I’ve always said that the world is a different place for the heartbroken. It moves on a different axis, at a different speed. Time skips backwards and forwards fleetingly. The heartbroken might go through thousands of micro-emotions a day trying to figure out how to get through it without picking up the phone to hear that old familiar voice. In the land of heartbreak, moments of strength, independence, and devil-may-care rebellion are intricately woven together with grief, paralyzing vulnerability and hopelessness. Imagining your future might always take you on a detour back to the past. And this is all to say, that the next album I’ll be releasing is my version of Red.

Musically and lyrically, Red resembled a heartbroken person. It was all over the place, a fractured mosaic of feelings that somehow all fit together in the end. Happy, free, confused, lonely, devastated, euphoric, wild, and tortured by memories past. Like trying on pieces of a new life, I went into the studio and experimented with different sounds and collaborators. And I’m not sure if it was pouring my thoughts into this album, hearing thousands of your voices sing the lyrics back to me in passionate solidarity, or if it was simply time, but something was healed along the way.

Sometimes you need to talk it over (over and over and over) for it to ever really be... over. Like your friend who calls you in the middle of the night going on and on about their ex, I just couldn’t stop writing. This will be the first time you hear all 30 songs that were meant to go on Red. And hey, one of them is even ten minutes long.

Red (Taylor’s Version) will be out November 19."

This woman just does not slow down.

[HOF]

Taylor is going prog after all!

[KevShmev]

Yep, just saw that on Twitter. I think she had said that All Too Well was originally 10-20 minutes long, before she brought it down to 5 1/2, so I am sure that will be the 10-minute song.  Gonna a Red November. 

[Stadler]

Yep, just saw that on Twitter. I think she had said that All Too Well was originally 10-20 minutes long, before she brought it down to 5 1/2, so I am sure that will be the 10-minute song.  Gonna a Red November. 

If that's the case, I will buy that.  I LOVE that song.

[425]

I'm looking forward to Taylor's 2-minute mellotron solo.

[KevShmev]

I'm looking forward to Taylor's 2-minute mellotron solo.

 

Yep, just saw that on Twitter. I think she had said that All Too Well was originally 10-20 minutes long, before she brought it down to 5 1/2, so I am sure that will be the 10-minute song.  Gonna a Red November. 

If that's the case, I will buy that.  I LOVE that song.

I will buy it anyway a) to support the endeavor, and b) to get all of the new and previously unreleased (I assume) songs.  Red is an album I think will be hard to improve, as the original has a bit of grime and dirt in a good way that adds to the character of the album, and my guess is the newer version will be cleaner and slicker, but I could always be wrong.  I know she is doing these for the ownership, not necessarily to improve them, but I am just thinking out loud as a consumer.

[Zook]

I'll buy the new version of Red. It's a good album. And hey, maybe she'll leave off the fake laugh in Stay Stay Stay.

[MoraWintersoul]

Am I the only one mad she isn't releasing 1989 for summer like god intended

[Zook]

I've never been able to associate music with seasons, only events. If that's what you're talking about.

[KevShmev]

Am I the only one mad she isn't releasing 1989 for summer like god intended

Not sure why so many fans had their hearts set on 1989.  I guess the snippet of the new Wildest Dreams in that movie trailer got fans' hopes up, but it'll happen eventually.  Fans need to be a little patient. We all still have the original 1989 we can enjoy, ya know.

[MoraWintersoul]

You are both correct and so is this meme