Taylor Swift

[Zook]

Using that standard, anything a musician writes beforehand and then sings or plays in a song is therefore fake, right?

Well, kinda yeah. I mean, we're only talking about laughter here. The laugh in Iron Maiden's Moonchild is clearly fake laughter, but it's written for the song. It doesn't sound genuine. No one made Bruce laugh. It's a fake theatrical laugh to enhance the song. The same can be said about Taylor's laughs as they're meant to enhance the song narrative, but they don't sound right. Her songs are always more grounded, so maybe comparing them to a heavy metal song with fantasy themed lyrics isn't fair. I guess the bottom line is Taylor Swift can not fake laugh convincingly and I wish she would stop.

[KevShmev]

I am not much of a Maiden fan, so I do not know the example you are giving regarding Dickinson, but while I get where you are coming from, it doesn't bother me.  I just hope she is past letting her producers using that stupid ass modern effect where it sounds like a robot is singing, like at the beginning of Delicate (which is still a damn fine song regardless) or for chunks of King of My Heart.   It's very much a pop music trope at this point, so I guess it all depends on if she circles back to pop following the 2020 albums or if she has finished her pop phase.

[Zook]

I am not much of a Maiden fan, so I do not know the example you are giving regarding Dickinson, but while I get where you are coming from, it doesn't bother me.  I just hope she is past letting her producers using that stupid ass modern effect where it sounds like a robot is singing, like at the beginning of Delicate (which is still a damn fine song regardless) or for chunks of King of My Heart.   It's very much a pop music trope at this point, so I guess it all depends on if she circles back to pop following the 2020 albums or if she has finished her pop phase.

Kinda like how autotune was original meant to hide bad singing, and then it was overused to the point of parody, and now it's used as an effect, and that too is overdone and now a trope? I don't think I've ever heard any autotune in a Taylor Swift song.

[KevShmev]

Kinda like how autotune was original meant to hide bad singing, and then it was overused to the point of parody, and now it's used as an effect, and that too is overdone and now a trope? I don't think I've ever heard any autotune in a Taylor Swift song.

That wouldn't surprise me.  Taylor is not a naturally gifted singer and doesn't have great range (at least not high range), and I always catch instances where the thinness of her voice is more than evident, and those are probably moments where autotune would make it sound "better," but I like that they leave it the way it is.  She has managed to turn her imperfections and limitations as a singer, in the technical sense, into a strength. 

[Skeever]

It just doesn't sound like genuine laughter to me. I doubt when she was recording the vocals that she just burst into laughter on the fly. It sounds planned for the content of the song, on both songs.

Very little about Taylor has ever sounded "genuine" to me. Despite that I still think Taylor Swift™ music is pretty decent, it's got decent melodies and slick production the way you can expect from a lot of corporate manufactured music.

And with that comment I'll see myself out 

[KevShmev]

I'd probably see myself out, too, if I dropped a nonsensical bomb like that. 

[Zantera]

It just doesn't sound like genuine laughter to me. I doubt when she was recording the vocals that she just burst into laughter on the fly. It sounds planned for the content of the song, on both songs.

Very little about Taylor has ever sounded "genuine" to me. Despite that I still think Taylor Swift™ music is pretty decent, it's got decent melodies and slick production the way you can expect from a lot of corporate manufactured music.

And with that comment I'll see myself out 

I think this is a pretty fair assessment honestly. She falls into that category with other artists like Beyonce or Katy Perry for me where you can't argue with the catchiness but I don't really get much of an own voice/strong personality that overpowers the 'corporate manufactured' model.

[Stadler]

It just doesn't sound like genuine laughter to me. I doubt when she was recording the vocals that she just burst into laughter on the fly. It sounds planned for the content of the song, on both songs.

Very little about Taylor has ever sounded "genuine" to me. Despite that I still think Taylor Swift™ music is pretty decent, it's got decent melodies and slick production the way you can expect from a lot of corporate manufactured music.

And with that comment I'll see myself out 

Sorry, but the notion that she's "corporate manufactured music" - or at least any more CMM than, say, Bruce Springsteen or U2 or REM - is comical.  And the only thing funnier than that is comparing her to Beyonce and Katy Perry.  C'mon. 

[Dream Team]

Since it seems anti opinions are being voiced in this thread, I'll add that I think Swift and her ilk are clowns, and not because I mostly like heavy music. I grew up in the era of the greatest pop stars of all time like Michael Jackson, Madonna, Prince, Whitney Houston, Phil Collins, Hall & Oates, Duran Duran etc etc ad nauseum. The stuff these auto-tuned kids are releasing today does not compare. Oh yeah and get off my lawn.

[Skeever]

It just doesn't sound like genuine laughter to me. I doubt when she was recording the vocals that she just burst into laughter on the fly. It sounds planned for the content of the song, on both songs.

Very little about Taylor has ever sounded "genuine" to me. Despite that I still think Taylor Swift™ music is pretty decent, it's got decent melodies and slick production the way you can expect from a lot of corporate manufactured music.

And with that comment I'll see myself out 

I think this is a pretty fair assessment honestly. She falls into that category with other artists like Beyonce or Katy Perry for me where you can't argue with the catchiness but I don't really get much of an own voice/strong personality that overpowers the 'corporate manufactured' model.

That's what I mean. The things that are unique about her are those imperfections that remind you she probably is the talent level of someone you actually knew in person who showed up to the school open mic and played their own written songs in a way that was kind of quaint and charming but who would not have ever gotten noticed, except for in Taylor's case her parents were like C-Suite executives. Which is cool! Good for her. A lot of people born with the same privileges less creativity would probably just spend their early years crying on My Super Sweet 16 about how their Daddy got them the wrong BMW for their birthday. That's why I like her early stuff. It has a sort of endearing quality - the high school talent show nerd who got a record deal. Neat. The newer stuff just sounds like corporate music to me doesn't really impress me any more than the next Jack Antanoff production.

[Zantera]

It just doesn't sound like genuine laughter to me. I doubt when she was recording the vocals that she just burst into laughter on the fly. It sounds planned for the content of the song, on both songs.

Very little about Taylor has ever sounded "genuine" to me. Despite that I still think Taylor Swift™ music is pretty decent, it's got decent melodies and slick production the way you can expect from a lot of corporate manufactured music.

And with that comment I'll see myself out 

I think this is a pretty fair assessment honestly. She falls into that category with other artists like Beyonce or Katy Perry for me where you can't argue with the catchiness but I don't really get much of an own voice/strong personality that overpowers the 'corporate manufactured' model.

That's what I mean. The things that are unique about her are those imperfections that remind you she probably is the talent level of someone you actually knew in person who showed up to the school open mic and played their own written songs in a way that was kind of quaint and charming but who would not have ever gotten noticed, except for in Taylor's case her parents were like C-Suite executives. Which is cool! Good for her. A lot of people born with the same privileges less creativity would probably just spend their early years crying on My Super Sweet 16 about how their Daddy got them the wrong BMW for their birthday. That's why I like her early stuff. It has a sort of endearing quality - the high school talent show nerd who got a record deal. Neat. The newer stuff just sounds like corporate music to me doesn't really impress me any more than the next Jack Antanoff production.

I can sorta get that about her early stuff. Not my cup of tea but definitely has that 'endearing' feel to it. The last few albums to me just feel a bit like generic indie pop stuff that isn't necessarily bad but there's hundreds of other bands/artists doing similar things and it doesn't really stand out among it.

But hey I'm not here to ruin the party for those who are big fans.

[Skeever]

It just doesn't sound like genuine laughter to me. I doubt when she was recording the vocals that she just burst into laughter on the fly. It sounds planned for the content of the song, on both songs.

Very little about Taylor has ever sounded "genuine" to me. Despite that I still think Taylor Swift™ music is pretty decent, it's got decent melodies and slick production the way you can expect from a lot of corporate manufactured music.

And with that comment I'll see myself out 

Sorry, but the notion that she's "corporate manufactured music" - or at least any more CMM than, say, Bruce Springsteen or U2 or REM - is comical.  And the only thing funnier than that is comparing her to Beyonce and Katy Perry.  C'mon.

There is one person with songwriter credit on "Born in the USA", like most of Bruce's songs. By contrast, every noteworthy Taylor song is credited to a songwriter-producer cowriter like Max Martin or Shellback or Jack Antanoff, who, of course, are the same people writing all the songs for Katy Perry or Lorde or whoever else, which is where I assume Zantera was going with his comment.

It's cool - I don't turn my nose up at that stuff, nor do I care that much for Bruce or U2 (and I definitely don't care about REM). There's no snobbishness or anti-corporate pop nature behind my opinion. I was just agreeing with Zook who mentioned Taylor's lack of genuineness, by explaining that her authenticity also falls short with me, especially when you compare her to a lot of the same artists that use a lot of the same songwriter-producers. There are only so many artists as big as Taylor and I like being familiar with the pop culture of the day, so as long as she keeps making music that is trendy and hot at the moment I'll keep at least checking out her singles. But isn't part of whether or not you enjoy something, pop especially, always going to be subjective, a matter of how much you personally "buy" the end result and are capable of finding something authentic and relatable? Seems silly to laugh at someone or dismiss them outright because they find your favorite popstar inauthentic.

[Stadler]

Since it seems anti opinions are being voiced in this thread, I'll add that I think Swift and her ilk are clowns, and not because I mostly like heavy music. I grew up in the era of the greatest pop stars of all time like Michael Jackson, Madonna, Prince, Whitney Houston, Phil Collins, Hall & Oates, Duran Duran etc etc ad nauseum. The stuff these auto-tuned kids are releasing today does not compare. Oh yeah and get off my lawn.

Five posts after we all agreed that Taylor Swift doesn't use auto-tune. 

[XeRocks81]

I guess the point of contention is wether or not having co-songwriters anf producers makes music inherently less authentic? Or not having any of that makes music inherently better?  I would say no, in my opinion. 

[Fritzinger]

Since it seems anti opinions are being voiced in this thread, I'll add that I think Swift and her ilk are clowns, and not because I mostly like heavy music. I grew up in the era of the greatest pop stars of all time like Michael Jackson, Madonna, Prince, Whitney Houston, Phil Collins, Hall & Oates, Duran Duran etc etc ad nauseum. The stuff these auto-tuned kids are releasing today does not compare. Oh yeah and get off my lawn.

Not a fan of generalizations like this one. Some of "these [...] kids" release great music. Music biz has changed a lot, so it's not quite fair to compare any of today's artists to 80s popstars. I also like 80s music more than most of today's pop music. And a lot of today's popular stuff is absolutely not my thing. But you can't just cling to the past and say that all these youngster nowadays only release shit.

[Skeever]

I guess the point of contention is wether or not having co-songwriters anf producers makes music inherently less authentic? Or not having any of that makes music inherently better?  I would say no, in my opinion.

That's not my point. Mentioning her songwriters and producers is just a way of acknowledging the nature of her music as a major record label production, one that uses similar methods of development to other major record label products. The "authenticity" is another thing, way more subjective, way more up to how the pretty face (in this case, "Taylor") strikes the listener, and that's always going to vary from person to person. You're sold on it, or not. You can be like me, not completely sold on it, even if you still like it.

[KevShmev]

There is one person with songwriter credit on "Born in the USA", like most of Bruce's songs. By contrast, every noteworthy Taylor song is credited to a songwriter-producer cowriter like Max Martin or Shellback or Jack Antanoff, who, of course, are the same people writing all the songs for Katy Perry or Lorde or whoever else, which is where I assume Zantera was going with his comment.

That is factually incorrect.

Love Story, one of her biggest hits ever and one that has held up as one of her three or four most well known songs, had one writer: Taylor Swift.

The entire Speak Now album, which spawned a top 3 hit in Mine and a huge hit in Mean that won awards, was written by one person: Taylor Swift.

Red, a top 10 hit from her album of the same name, had one writer: Taylor Swift.

Lover, another top 10 hits, was written by one person: Taylor Swift.

If you do not liker her music, that is fine. I get it.  Just keep the incorrect facts to yourself, maybe?

[Stadler]

It just doesn't sound like genuine laughter to me. I doubt when she was recording the vocals that she just burst into laughter on the fly. It sounds planned for the content of the song, on both songs.

Very little about Taylor has ever sounded "genuine" to me. Despite that I still think Taylor Swift™ music is pretty decent, it's got decent melodies and slick production the way you can expect from a lot of corporate manufactured music.

And with that comment I'll see myself out 

Sorry, but the notion that she's "corporate manufactured music" - or at least any more CMM than, say, Bruce Springsteen or U2 or REM - is comical.  And the only thing funnier than that is comparing her to Beyonce and Katy Perry.  C'mon.

There is one person with songwriter credit on "Born in the USA", like most of Bruce's songs. By contrast, every noteworthy Taylor song is credited to a songwriter-producer cowriter like Max Martin or Shellback or Jack Antanoff, who, of course, are the same people writing all the songs for Katy Perry or Lorde or whoever else, which is where I assume Zantera was going with his comment.

It's cool - I don't turn my nose up at that stuff, nor do I care that much for Bruce or U2 (and I definitely don't care about REM). There's no snobbishness or anti-corporate pop nature behind my opinion. I was just agreeing with Zook who mentioned Taylor's lack of genuineness, by explaining that her authenticity also falls short with me, especially when you compare her to a lot of the same artists that use a lot of the same songwriter-producers. There are only so many artists as big as Taylor and I like being familiar with the pop culture of the day, so as long as she keeps making music that is trendy and hot at the moment I'll keep at least checking out her singles. But isn't part of whether or not you enjoy something, pop especially, always going to be subjective, a matter of how much you personally "buy" the end result and are capable of finding something authentic and relatable? Seems silly to laugh at someone or dismiss them outright because they find your favorite popstar inauthentic.

Well, it's less about the "inauthenticity" than the other shots that I feel are unfounded and whose counter is more rooted in fact.   "Songwriting credits" are hardly the measure of credibility.   Is Def Leppard any less credible because Mutt Lange takes writers credit on the songs he works on?  Bryan Adams?  Is U2 "better" because they didn't give Eno and/or Daniel Lanois writing credits on the albums they had HUGE artistic input to?   I wouldn't be surprised at all if someone like a Max Martin made that a condition of employment, like Mutt Lange.   In any real comparison of artists, though, Swift DOES write a lot of her own material, and much of it herself.   Contrast to one of Beyonce's albums where one song has 13 writers. THIRTEEN.  Whitney Houston, named by DreamTeam, has all of four songs to her credit (all co-written by at least three other people) in her ENTIRE catalogue.  To sit with ONE writing partner and craft out songs, songs that the writing partner produces and plays on, is hardly a knock to her credibility or authenticity as an artist.

If you don't find her authentic, so be it - I don't find Radiohead terribly authentic either, whereas many do - but I don't see how that then justifies a bunch of other shots that are factually inaccurate.  She's hardly "trendy"; she IS like Bruce in that she puts out what she wants when she wants to, and her audience - and that includes perceptive people like are here (I humbly exclude myself from that assessment), not just teenage girls - are willing to go with her on that ride.

[Stadler]

I guess the point of contention is wether or not having co-songwriters anf producers makes music inherently less authentic? Or not having any of that makes music inherently better?  I would say no, in my opinion.

That's not my point. Mentioning her songwriters and producers is just a way of acknowledging the nature of her music as a major record label production, one that uses similar methods of development to other major record label products. The "authenticity" is another thing, way more subjective, way more up to how the pretty face (in this case, "Taylor") strikes the listener, and that's always going to vary from person to person. You're sold on it, or not. You can be like me, not completely sold on it, even if you still like it.

And that's what I was responding to; other than she's young and female, I'm not sure what makes Taylor Swift more "major record label project" than any other artist. I guess it's subjective, but I can go around saying "wow it's cold in here",  a 95 degree room and it strains credibility.  That's why I keep comparing her to Bruce Springsteen; she's talked about sitting in her bedroom coming up with songs on her guitar, and Folklore and Evermore are testament to that.   That Bruce didn't give co-writing credit to Jon Landau or Chuck Plotkin (who produced Ghost of Tom Joad and Devils & Dust) doesn't make it any more or less "corporate product". It's a Bruce Springsteen record, for god sakes. 

[Skeever]

Yes Kev pointed out a couple exceptions where Taylor has not worked with the trendy major record industry songwriter producers of the day on her singles. But more often than not, that is what has happened. I don't understand the sensitivity toward that, the whole point is not that working with corporate industry producers makes you "inauthentic". There are plenty of non-corporate artists who strike as inauthentic as well.

The discourse above even in Stadler's post is exactly what rubs me as disingenuine about Taylor. She gets all the advantages of somebody who is signed on to major record labels using the best songwriters and producers of the day, she's sponsored high budget documentaries about herself in order to build up her own mythos, yet her legions go wild if you suggest that she is in any way manufactured. She's a major pop celebrity of the mainstream music industry and an indie darling at the same time. In my mind, no one gets to have everything, not even Taylor.

[KevShmev]

Well, it's less about the "inauthenticity" than the other shots that I feel are unfounded and whose counter is more rooted in fact.   "Songwriting credits" are hardly the measure of credibility.   Is Def Leppard any less credible because Mutt Lange takes writers credit on the songs he works on?  Bryan Adams?  Is U2 "better" because they didn't give Eno and/or Daniel Lanois writing credits on the albums they had HUGE artistic input to?   I wouldn't be surprised at all if someone like a Max Martin made that a condition of employment, like Mutt Lange.   In any real comparison of artists, though, Swift DOES write a lot of her own material, and much of it herself.   Contrast to one of Beyonce's albums where one song has 13 writers. THIRTEEN.  Whitney Houston, named by DreamTeam, has all of four songs to her credit (all co-written by at least three other people) in her ENTIRE catalogue.  To sit with ONE writing partner and craft out songs, songs that the writing partner produces and plays on, is hardly a knock to her credibility or authenticity as an artist.

If you don't find her authentic, so be it - I don't find Radiohead terribly authentic either, whereas many do - but I don't see how that then justifies a bunch of other shots that are factually inaccurate.  She's hardly "trendy"; she IS like Bruce in that she puts out what she wants when she wants to, and her audience - and that includes perceptive people like are here (I humbly exclude myself from that assessment), not just teenage girls - are willing to go with her on that ride.

Well said.  As we discussed in another thread recently, songwriting credit can be a tricky thing, as it varies from artist to artist as to how it it dished out, but all you have to do is listen to Swift talk about her songs to know that she is a songwriter, first and foremost.  It is clearly the asset of which she is the most proud, and the way she geeks out talking about songwriting makes it clear that she is THE driving force of every song she writes.  She is not some pop star who comes in and offers an idea that is user for a little part so she can worm her way into getting a songwriting credit. She is the real deal when it comes to songwriting, and while she is always extremely proud of the songs she writes by herself, she has no issues at all at giving mad props to her collaborators on the ones where she had a co-writer or two.

I cannot remember which Folklore song it was, but I remember Aaron Dessner telling the story of how he sent her an instrumental track before he went to bed one night, figuring they'd work on it the next day, and when he woke up, she had sent him a voice memo at like 2 am where she had taken his idea and already written the entire song around his idea.  That is when he was like, woah, this is some next level stuff.

[Stadler]

Yes Kev pointed out a couple exceptions where Taylor has not worked with the trendy major record industry songwriter producers of the day on her singles. But more often than not, that is what has happened. I don't understand the sensitivity toward that, the whole point is not that working with corporate industry producers makes you "inauthentic". There are plenty of non-corporate artists who strike as inauthentic as well.

The discourse above even in Stadler's post is exactly what rubs me as disingenuine about Taylor. She gets all the advantages of somebody who is signed on to major record labels using the best songwriters and producers of the day, she's sponsored high budget documentaries about herself in order to build up her own mythos, yet her legions go wild if you suggest that she is in any way manufactured. She's a major pop celebrity of the mainstream music industry and an indie darling at the same time. In my mind, no one gets to have everything, not even Taylor.

Ugh.  I'm hardly "her legions".  And your premise is PROVABLY false. PROVABLY.   She's had two records that might arguably be using "the best songwriters and producers of the day": 1989 and Reputation, and it's really just Reputation.   Jack Antonoff - who I despise, by the way, for reasons best kept to myself - is hardly "the best songwriters and producers of the day".   And you don't even mention Aaron Dessner, who did the bulk of Folklore and Evermore and is a highly respected, very credible indie artist, hardly "part of the machine".  Her first three records?  Largely produced by a well-regarded country producer Nathan Chapman.   

Again, all the accusations you level, you can level at artists like Michael Jackson, U2 and Bruce Springsteen.  Hell, in his BROADWAY SHOW, Bruce actually copped to something very close to that:  he said, in so many words, that his mythology is as one of the working people, and he's never worked a day in his life, he just has a good imagination and a lot of people that have helped him over the years.

[Zantera]

Personally I think the song writing credits is the least of the problems when Folklore/Evermore just sound like your average indie albums. I like Aaron Dessner but his work with The National is a lot stronger and more interesting IMO. 1989 is probably the one I would be the most likely to revisit. I do think Skeever's point of the earlier stuff having more of a quaint charm or whatever has some validity.

Whether you like, dislike, love or hate Taylor Swift I just think there's a lot of similar sounding (to her last few albums at least) music that is as just as good if not better.

[Skeever]

@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.

[Skeever]

Personally I think the song writing credits is the least of the problems when Folklore/Evermore just sound like your average indie albums. I like Aaron Dessner but his work with The National is a lot stronger and more interesting IMO. 1989 is probably the one I would be the most likely to revisit. I do think Skeever's point of the earlier stuff having more of a quaint charm or whatever has some validity.

Whether you like, dislike, love or hate Taylor Swift I just think there's a lot of similar sounding (to her last few albums at least) music that is as just as good if not better.

Just one more post from me in this thread to say that this is pretty much exactly where I am at with her music.

[KevShmev]

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.

I don't want to speak for Bill, but my interpretation is that Bruce could be construed as fake or inauthentic for portraying himself as and singing songs about the working man when he is nothing of the kind, yet no one ever lobs that criticism at him, yet Taylor apparently gets it thrown at her (which is funny since I always thought a criticism of her was that she was TOO authentic, what with all of those songs with her in her feelings about exes and whatnot).

To me, saying someone sounds fake when they sing is a more harsher criticism than saying they cannot sing.  Accusations of being fake are harsh when it comes to the arts.  Are writers of fiction novels fake because they are writing about made-up stories which may spring from experiences they never had?

Also, no need for DM's/PM's.  I have no problem having a friendly disagreement out in the open.

[XeRocks81]

just want to note that while Springsteen has indeed never worked day job in his life, he does come from honest to god working class background and many of his songs are about people he knew and grew up with, family and friends etc. in other words the autenticity is there.

[XeRocks81]

edit: double post

[XeRocks81]

Personally I think the song writing credits is the least of the problems when Folklore/Evermore just sound like your average indie albums. I like Aaron Dessner but his work with The National is a lot stronger and more interesting IMO. 1989 is probably the one I would be the most likely to revisit. I do think Skeever's point of the earlier stuff having more of a quaint charm or whatever has some validity.

Whether you like, dislike, love or hate Taylor Swift I just think there's a lot of similar sounding (to her last few albums at least) music that is as just as good if not better.

Just one more post from me in this thread to say that this is pretty much exactly where I am at with her music.

I've become a huuuge TS fan in recent years but I think that's perfectly valid.   When Folklore came out I did hear (in Fantano's review of example) that she was basically doing Lana Del Rey and I'm sure that true... but I've never listened to Lana Del Rey.  It's still a valid criticism but at the same time it doesn't have to change my appreciation though.

[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.

[KevShmev]

Along those lines, I will be 48 next month and am still a rocker at heart.  I just happened to really like her music now.

While I don't think of her a pop star per se (in the sense of pop music as it is generally defined now, not in the "anyone who is popular = pop" sense), as she is more of a singer/songwriter, with only three of her nine studio albums falling under the pop genre, if we can circle back to the pop argument, if someone asks me, "Was pop music better in the 80's or better now?", without pausing, and even if we threw Taylor into the pop genre, I am saying the 80's. 

Just don't give me Whitney Houston, who had an awesome voice, as a standout, since of her 23 top 10 hits on the pop charts here in the States, she was a co-writer on 1 of them.  1.   I will always give a lot of extra credit to the musicians and singers who write all or most of their own songs.  Don't get me wrong, a good song is a good song, and there are a couple of Whitney songs I don't mind throwing on to my 80's playlist once in a while, but when it comes to artistic integrity, which I get can sound a bit snobby, gimme the songwriters all day. 

[Skeever]

@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.

[KevShmev]

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...

[Zook]

Would she be as successful without her parents' help?

[XeRocks81]

We should be as successful without her parents' help?

Obviously no. But, at least to me, it doesn't affect how I enjoy her work. Her parents help and moving the family to Nashville etc, alone wouldn't have been enough if she didn't real talent both in songwriting and as a performer.