Taylor Swift is awful (and her music isn't even very good)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you posting about Taylor Swift’s awfulness, I am genuinely curious about what artist who is contemporary to Taylor that you would suggest we listen to!

I’m a 57 YO female and enjoy the many Taylor Swift songs that include strong imagery. Songs I would cite include Mirrorball (don’t love the song but think the “tallest tiptoes, spinning in my highest heels, shining just for you” is a lovely image) along with songs like “Cardigan”, “Champagne Problems”, “Seven”, and her collaboration with Lana del Rey, “Snow on the Beach” are all well worth listening to.

I have fairly diverse musical tastes IMO, and also enjoy James McMurtry, Jason Isbell, Maggie Rogers, U2, Tyler Childers, Sza, Nelly, Lana del Rey, St. Vincent, Car Seat Headrests, Jim White, Nelly, Brockhampton, Beyoncé, Lorde, Sleater-Kinney, Bon Iver, Wussy, Sufjan Stevens, Hand Havits, Neko Case, X, Wilco, Beck, Father John Misty, Big Thief, Sharon Van Etten, The National and many others. Typically there is always music on in my house. I know two of the things I look for in music is strong visual imagery (Taylor delivers) and interesting riff (not necessarily Taylor’s strength)

There have been a lot of posts on this thread about older groups like U2 that are ‘better than Taylor’ that people believe influenced various TS songs. My question for all of you is which artists that are peers of Taylor you believe are superior. Genuinely curious. I enjoy many of Taylor’s recent releases but would not characterize myself as a Swiftie. I do know that statistically I listen to much more music than most people my age. Really, most people of any age based on my Spotify stats.

I haven't said her music is "awful" but I don't really like it. I have quite a bit of overlap in your musical taste otherwise, but I'm picky. I'd add Jenny Lewis, Sylvan Esso, Tune Yards (Merrill Garbus), Vampire Weekend, Dehd, boygenius, Last Dinner Party, Wet Leg, Santigold, Yo La Tengo, off the top of my head.

My issues with Swift: A lot of her music sounds the same to me. A lot of her earlier work has a singsongy quality that I actively dislike (I really can't stand that Romeo and Juliet song, or the short skirts/t-shirts song). I do think her music has gotten better, but it just sounds... self-indulgent to me. The lyrics and the music itself. I am not someone who usually minds navel gazing in music but with Taylor it does bug me. Even back when I was single and "unlucky in love," something about the way she sings about these themes grates on me. I think it's the degree to which she is the main character of every story, to a degree that feels stunted to me. I relate for a minute but then it gets old, at some point I feel like you need to turn the picture on its side and offer some perspective.

A note: I have a degree in poetry and while music is not the same as poetry, what aggravates me about a lot of Swift's music is the stuff that would aggravate me in a poem. Her perspective is fine from a teenage poet, but it is immature. Some of her imagery is evocative but lacks subtext, and her work doesn't hang together in a way that tells a story about the world, only her. The song Antihero is the first time I've ever felt a bit of that shift, but it still feels amateurish to me. And look, not all music has to be super deep, and like I said, lyrics are not the same as poetry. But I think the issue is that it feels like Swift is *aiming* for that level of poetry in her lyrics. Like what you see in lyrics by people like John Prine, Joni Mitchell, and Dylan, or more contemporaneously, Courtney Barnett or Kurt Vile. I feel like I hear the attempt, and it falls short.

It's okay, I don't have to love every artist. But it is a bit strange the degree to which some people think not liking Taylor Swift is just not allowed. If someone said they didn't like one of the artists I mentioned above, I'd be fine with it. People have different taste. But with Swift, for some reason, people get mad if you just say "not my thing" or "eh, she's seems mediocre." It's just an opinion. people like different music. I don't get it.

It's okay to not like Taylor Swift. I think she'll be okay without my fandom!

It would be better for you to critique the actual poetry, than to compare her songs to other ones that aren’t at all the same. The first would be interesting, the second is pointless.

I'm not the one who compared a Swift song to that Bono song. I don't like U2 and am not familiar with that song, and I thought that "analysis" was pretty dumb. From a poetry standpoint, neither song is particularly interesting.

I was trying to share why I, personally, don't like Swift's music. Is that allowed? Ever?

Sorry, I thought you were that PP! I thought their analysis was dumb too. I am interested to hear your perspective as a poetry major.

I mean I don't want to go analyzing Taylor Swift lyrics like they are poems because, as other PPs have pointed out, lyrics are really generally not supposed to stand alone in that way. But to give some examples of what I DO like in music lyrics that have poetic qualities:

Kurt Vile has a newish son, Another Good Year for the Roses. This song is actually a reference to a song by George Jones from the 70s (actually written by Jerry Chestnut, and later covered by a bunch of artists including Elvis Costello). I will give you some of those lyrics:

[Verse 1]
I can hardly bear the sight of lipstick
On the cigarettes there in the ashtray
Lying cold the way you left them
At least your lips caressed them while you packed
And a lip print on a half filled cup of coffee
That you poured and didn't drink
But at least you thought you wanted it
And that's so much more than I can say for me

[Chorus]
But what a good year for the roses
Many blooms still linger there
The lawn could stand another mowing
It's funny, I don't even care
When you turned and walked away
And as the door behind you closes
The only thing I know to say
It's been a good year for the roses

What I like about this is that it's so tight. In the first verse, it's kind of Taylor-esque, right? Very specific, self-focused, visual lyrics about a personal experience. But then look at the chorus, where it turns. We're not in a room watching a lover pack up while smoking a cigarette. Now we're outside, somebody's talking about what a good year it's been for the roses, which is a thing people say -- it feels so familiar and real because we've all heard people say stuff like that. But following the specificity of the first verse, this common, familiar saying takes on a new meaning. Suddenly it's evoking this kind of longing for something ephemeral, be it love that fades or roses that die. And then as the chorus closes, we're back in the room with the packed suitcase and the cigarettes on the ashtray, and the poetic voice is echoing that sentiment "it's been a good year for the roses" and now that sense of longing and loss feels really visceral. It belongs to the listener now, too.

These are very intentional choices -- the shift in focus, back and forth, from the room where the breakup is happening to a broader frame that incorporates a larger world where people are talking about the flowers, where the yard needs to be cut, and then back into the room. Those shifts suck the listener in. It's so crisp and expertly done.

Here's Swift on All Too Well, another song about breaking up:

I walked through the door with you
The air was cold
But something about it felt like home somehow
And I, left my scarf there at your sister's house
And you've still got it in your drawer even now
Oh, your sweet disposition
And my wide-eyed gaze
We're singing in the car, getting lost upstate
Autumn leaves falling down like pieces into place
And I can picture it after all these days
And I know it's long gone and that magic's not here no more
And I might be okay but I'm not fine at all
'Cause there we are again on that little town street
You almost ran the red 'cause you were lookin' over at me
Wind in my hair, I was there
I remember it all too well

Look, it's not terrible. But the difference is so clear to me. First off, there are too many visual details and they are not as evocative. Notice in the George Jones song, it selective about what they tell us -- we only get a few visual cues but the pack a punch. The cigarette with lipstick on it in the ashtray, a drink that is poured and undrunk, the lingering roses on the bushes, an overgrown lawn, a door closing. Literally there's a story there just from those visuals. But with Swift, we have: a door, cold air, a scarf in an unknown sisters house and then in a drawer somewhere else, the singer's "wide eyed gaze," then we're in a car up state, autumn leaves (just autumn leaves, we have to fill in the blank what they might look like), now we're on "that little town street," running a read light, he's looking at her, the wind in her hair.

It's a mess. It's just a list of details and they aren't very fully drawn at all. What does the scarf look like? Does it mean anything? Why is the air cold? Do the autumn leaves look like anything, do they make you feel something specific? Is there danger in running the red light? Is he looking at her in anger? Love? And also some of these details feel so trite. Of course they're upstate, it's fall, it's a little town, there's a scarf. These are also details from a dozen hallmark movies about a girl who is unlucky in love finding a guy in her hometown.

But the bigger issue -- where is the turn? Remember that shift in focus in the George Jones song? Laser focus on this one specific, emotionally charged moment in the first verse, then this pull back in the chorus that ends with a zoom in back on that moment. Very effective. With Swift, I'm looking at a montage from that hallmark movie, of generic "girl falls in love with a boy in picturesque small town" images that just pile one on top of the other, there's no turn, no shift in perspective, no purposeful effort to tell me something about WHY this story matters, whether to the person writing it or to the person listening. I'm just supposed to relate. Okay.

Again, songs aren't poetry, but a lot of the same principles apply. And Swift's lyrics tend to lack specificity, perspective, or subtext. Sometimes she uses metaphor and sometimes she can be a bit clever in the way she turns a phrase. But it still feels amateurish to me. Here's Courtney Barnett on Pedestrian at Best (great title) being more clever in one chorus than Swift has ever been:

Put me on a pedestal and I'll only disappoint you
Tell me I'm exceptional, I promise to exploit you
Give me all your money, and I'll make some origami, honey
I think you're a joke, but I don't find you very funny

I get that "give me all your money and I'll make some origami, honey" line in my head all the time -- it's funny, visually evocative, and transgressive all at once. I love it.

Meanwhile, here's Swift on Antihero, which I think is lyrically her best song to date:

Did you hear my covert narcissism I disguise as altruism
Like some kind of congressman? (Tale as old as time)
I wake up screaming from dreaming
One day I'll watch as you're leaving
And life will lose all its meaning
(For the last time)

It even bears som resemblance to the Barnett lyric because of the multiple rhymes. And while "covert narcissism I disguise as altruism" has some charm, the rest is mushy in a way the Barnett lyric is not. It's undercooked. Both songs have really great composition, but the way those Barnett lyrics sit in the song is so perfect. With Antihero, I feel like it's almost something, but not quite.

Anyway, that's what I've got from a quick read, this is why I am not overly impressed with Swift as a lyricist. Pedestrian at best (haha).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. Any credibility you may have had is gone once you start in with the nutso conspiracy shit about people who disagree with you being employees of the celebrity being discussed

I would normally agree, but PP says she’s in the industry and doesn’t pay to go to Taylor concerts. That kinda adds up to her working for her or being involved with someone who works for her.

I used to work in entertainment and I’d only get free tickets if the person was a client of some sort. Otherwise, I’d have to pay like everyone else.

It’s hardly a nutso conspiracy theory to say the a PP who goes to shows for free is somehow connected to Taylor Swift.

DP but I'm with you. That PP was also just being ridiculous. She was bragging about not paying for shows and she really was claiming that someone Taylor's set design on her tour (which no, she definitely did not do herself, please) is evidence of her unique greatness as a musical artist. That's ridiculous.

I never said she built or designed her sets. I also never said my husband was a designer. I never spoke of her musical greatness. honestly, I’m beginning to think you guys (specifically ) don’t like her music because you can’t understand language… I’m concerned about some of you.

Let me refresh your memory of your exact words by cutting and pasting them for you:

1) “This current tour is something else. She dreamed up and executed something that has impressed and amazed her peers. It’s dazzling ( I’m married to a scenic carpenter and he is floored by it)”

You are saying her show is dazzling, no? How should we interpret that? What is a scenic designer if not someone who works on scenes? Please explain.

2) “I work in the industry and understand very well how shows are designed and produced.”

Please do tell….

and

3) “Oh. We didn’t pay for the show. We don’t pay for shows.”

Why didn’t you pay for her show? Did you steal the tickets? Or do you know people who work with/for her?

And last but not least the most poignant words of all:

“I’m beginning to think you guys (specifically ) …..can’t understand language… I’m concerned about some of you.”

Ditto, I’m really worried for you. Do you have dementia? Or are you just a liar?

God you are embarrassing yourself.
A scenic CARPENTER is not a designer. And you don’t know the difference. Which is fine and understandable. If you don’t work in technical theatre you probably wouldn’t. But this thread is about language and you really don't seem to pick up on much of any of it.
Words have meaning.
And those are completely different jobs.

You’re really digging into the semantics. I realize that a scenic carpenter physically builds the stages as directed by the vision of the set designer. I’m just playing on the phone while nursing, not writing a thesis. It was an accidental mistype. Either way, it’s the same field and Taylor Swift had little to do with either.

Speaking of embarrassing oneself, let me repeat your statements to you again. You said:

1) “This current tour is something else. She dreamed up and executed something that has impressed and amazed her peers. It’s dazzling ( I’m married to a scenic carpenter and he is floored by it)”

Saying that Taylor “dreamed up and executed” something that “floored” your scenic CARPENTER implies that she was the one who did the set design (by “dreaming” it up) and carpentry (by “execut[ing]”) “something” that dazzled an expert on stage sets (a “scenic carpenter.”)

Why would you mention what your husband did for a living if not to use him as an authority in the matter? And why did you say Taylor came up with the ideas and executed them if not to suggest that she had a hand in the set design?

And really, I’m still dying to know more about how you didn’t pay for the show:

2) “Oh. We didn’t pay for the show. We don’t pay for shows.”

Why didn’t you pay for her show? Did you steal the tickets? Or do you know people who work with/for her?

I’m guessing it has a bit to do with this comment:

3) I work in the industry and understand very well how shows are designed and produced.”

Is that why your scenic carpenter husband was dazzled? Because you or he worked on it and scored free tickets? I’ll bet it’s something along those lines.

But you won’t admit it, like all liars, you’ll just keep changing the topic and insulting me for sniffing you out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you posting about Taylor Swift’s awfulness, I am genuinely curious about what artist who is contemporary to Taylor that you would suggest we listen to!

I’m a 57 YO female and enjoy the many Taylor Swift songs that include strong imagery. Songs I would cite include Mirrorball (don’t love the song but think the “tallest tiptoes, spinning in my highest heels, shining just for you” is a lovely image) along with songs like “Cardigan”, “Champagne Problems”, “Seven”, and her collaboration with Lana del Rey, “Snow on the Beach” are all well worth listening to.

I have fairly diverse musical tastes IMO, and also enjoy James McMurtry, Jason Isbell, Maggie Rogers, U2, Tyler Childers, Sza, Nelly, Lana del Rey, St. Vincent, Car Seat Headrests, Jim White, Nelly, Brockhampton, Beyoncé, Lorde, Sleater-Kinney, Bon Iver, Wussy, Sufjan Stevens, Hand Havits, Neko Case, X, Wilco, Beck, Father John Misty, Big Thief, Sharon Van Etten, The National and many others. Typically there is always music on in my house. I know two of the things I look for in music is strong visual imagery (Taylor delivers) and interesting riff (not necessarily Taylor’s strength)

There have been a lot of posts on this thread about older groups like U2 that are ‘better than Taylor’ that people believe influenced various TS songs. My question for all of you is which artists that are peers of Taylor you believe are superior. Genuinely curious. I enjoy many of Taylor’s recent releases but would not characterize myself as a Swiftie. I do know that statistically I listen to much more music than most people my age. Really, most people of any age based on my Spotify stats.

I haven't said her music is "awful" but I don't really like it. I have quite a bit of overlap in your musical taste otherwise, but I'm picky. I'd add Jenny Lewis, Sylvan Esso, Tune Yards (Merrill Garbus), Vampire Weekend, Dehd, boygenius, Last Dinner Party, Wet Leg, Santigold, Yo La Tengo, off the top of my head.

My issues with Swift: A lot of her music sounds the same to me. A lot of her earlier work has a singsongy quality that I actively dislike (I really can't stand that Romeo and Juliet song, or the short skirts/t-shirts song). I do think her music has gotten better, but it just sounds... self-indulgent to me. The lyrics and the music itself. I am not someone who usually minds navel gazing in music but with Taylor it does bug me. Even back when I was single and "unlucky in love," something about the way she sings about these themes grates on me. I think it's the degree to which she is the main character of every story, to a degree that feels stunted to me. I relate for a minute but then it gets old, at some point I feel like you need to turn the picture on its side and offer some perspective.

A note: I have a degree in poetry and while music is not the same as poetry, what aggravates me about a lot of Swift's music is the stuff that would aggravate me in a poem. Her perspective is fine from a teenage poet, but it is immature. Some of her imagery is evocative but lacks subtext, and her work doesn't hang together in a way that tells a story about the world, only her. The song Antihero is the first time I've ever felt a bit of that shift, but it still feels amateurish to me. And look, not all music has to be super deep, and like I said, lyrics are not the same as poetry. But I think the issue is that it feels like Swift is *aiming* for that level of poetry in her lyrics. Like what you see in lyrics by people like John Prine, Joni Mitchell, and Dylan, or more contemporaneously, Courtney Barnett or Kurt Vile. I feel like I hear the attempt, and it falls short.

It's okay, I don't have to love every artist. But it is a bit strange the degree to which some people think not liking Taylor Swift is just not allowed. If someone said they didn't like one of the artists I mentioned above, I'd be fine with it. People have different taste. But with Swift, for some reason, people get mad if you just say "not my thing" or "eh, she's seems mediocre." It's just an opinion. people like different music. I don't get it.

It's okay to not like Taylor Swift. I think she'll be okay without my fandom!

It would be better for you to critique the actual poetry, than to compare her songs to other ones that aren’t at all the same. The first would be interesting, the second is pointless.

I'm not the one who compared a Swift song to that Bono song. I don't like U2 and am not familiar with that song, and I thought that "analysis" was pretty dumb. From a poetry standpoint, neither song is particularly interesting.

I was trying to share why I, personally, don't like Swift's music. Is that allowed? Ever?

Sorry, I thought you were that PP! I thought their analysis was dumb too. I am interested to hear your perspective as a poetry major.

I mean I don't want to go analyzing Taylor Swift lyrics like they are poems because, as other PPs have pointed out, lyrics are really generally not supposed to stand alone in that way. But to give some examples of what I DO like in music lyrics that have poetic qualities:

Kurt Vile has a newish son, Another Good Year for the Roses. This song is actually a reference to a song by George Jones from the 70s (actually written by Jerry Chestnut, and later covered by a bunch of artists including Elvis Costello). I will give you some of those lyrics:

[Verse 1]
I can hardly bear the sight of lipstick
On the cigarettes there in the ashtray
Lying cold the way you left them
At least your lips caressed them while you packed
And a lip print on a half filled cup of coffee
That you poured and didn't drink
But at least you thought you wanted it
And that's so much more than I can say for me

[Chorus]
But what a good year for the roses
Many blooms still linger there
The lawn could stand another mowing
It's funny, I don't even care
When you turned and walked away
And as the door behind you closes
The only thing I know to say
It's been a good year for the roses

What I like about this is that it's so tight. In the first verse, it's kind of Taylor-esque, right? Very specific, self-focused, visual lyrics about a personal experience. But then look at the chorus, where it turns. We're not in a room watching a lover pack up while smoking a cigarette. Now we're outside, somebody's talking about what a good year it's been for the roses, which is a thing people say -- it feels so familiar and real because we've all heard people say stuff like that. But following the specificity of the first verse, this common, familiar saying takes on a new meaning. Suddenly it's evoking this kind of longing for something ephemeral, be it love that fades or roses that die. And then as the chorus closes, we're back in the room with the packed suitcase and the cigarettes on the ashtray, and the poetic voice is echoing that sentiment "it's been a good year for the roses" and now that sense of longing and loss feels really visceral. It belongs to the listener now, too.

These are very intentional choices -- the shift in focus, back and forth, from the room where the breakup is happening to a broader frame that incorporates a larger world where people are talking about the flowers, where the yard needs to be cut, and then back into the room. Those shifts suck the listener in. It's so crisp and expertly done.

Here's Swift on All Too Well, another song about breaking up:

I walked through the door with you
The air was cold
But something about it felt like home somehow
And I, left my scarf there at your sister's house
And you've still got it in your drawer even now
Oh, your sweet disposition
And my wide-eyed gaze
We're singing in the car, getting lost upstate
Autumn leaves falling down like pieces into place
And I can picture it after all these days
And I know it's long gone and that magic's not here no more
And I might be okay but I'm not fine at all
'Cause there we are again on that little town street
You almost ran the red 'cause you were lookin' over at me
Wind in my hair, I was there
I remember it all too well

Look, it's not terrible. But the difference is so clear to me. First off, there are too many visual details and they are not as evocative. Notice in the George Jones song, it selective about what they tell us -- we only get a few visual cues but the pack a punch. The cigarette with lipstick on it in the ashtray, a drink that is poured and undrunk, the lingering roses on the bushes, an overgrown lawn, a door closing. Literally there's a story there just from those visuals. But with Swift, we have: a door, cold air, a scarf in an unknown sisters house and then in a drawer somewhere else, the singer's "wide eyed gaze," then we're in a car up state, autumn leaves (just autumn leaves, we have to fill in the blank what they might look like), now we're on "that little town street," running a read light, he's looking at her, the wind in her hair.

It's a mess. It's just a list of details and they aren't very fully drawn at all. What does the scarf look like? Does it mean anything? Why is the air cold? Do the autumn leaves look like anything, do they make you feel something specific? Is there danger in running the red light? Is he looking at her in anger? Love? And also some of these details feel so trite. Of course they're upstate, it's fall, it's a little town, there's a scarf. These are also details from a dozen hallmark movies about a girl who is unlucky in love finding a guy in her hometown.

But the bigger issue -- where is the turn? Remember that shift in focus in the George Jones song? Laser focus on this one specific, emotionally charged moment in the first verse, then this pull back in the chorus that ends with a zoom in back on that moment. Very effective. With Swift, I'm looking at a montage from that hallmark movie, of generic "girl falls in love with a boy in picturesque small town" images that just pile one on top of the other, there's no turn, no shift in perspective, no purposeful effort to tell me something about WHY this story matters, whether to the person writing it or to the person listening. I'm just supposed to relate. Okay.

Again, songs aren't poetry, but a lot of the same principles apply. And Swift's lyrics tend to lack specificity, perspective, or subtext. Sometimes she uses metaphor and sometimes she can be a bit clever in the way she turns a phrase. But it still feels amateurish to me. Here's Courtney Barnett on Pedestrian at Best (great title) being more clever in one chorus than Swift has ever been:

Put me on a pedestal and I'll only disappoint you
Tell me I'm exceptional, I promise to exploit you
Give me all your money, and I'll make some origami, honey
I think you're a joke, but I don't find you very funny

I get that "give me all your money and I'll make some origami, honey" line in my head all the time -- it's funny, visually evocative, and transgressive all at once. I love it.

Meanwhile, here's Swift on Antihero, which I think is lyrically her best song to date:

Did you hear my covert narcissism I disguise as altruism
Like some kind of congressman? (Tale as old as time)
I wake up screaming from dreaming
One day I'll watch as you're leaving
And life will lose all its meaning
(For the last time)

It even bears som resemblance to the Barnett lyric because of the multiple rhymes. And while "covert narcissism I disguise as altruism" has some charm, the rest is mushy in a way the Barnett lyric is not. It's undercooked. Both songs have really great composition, but the way those Barnett lyrics sit in the song is so perfect. With Antihero, I feel like it's almost something, but not quite.

Anyway, that's what I've got from a quick read, this is why I am not overly impressed with Swift as a lyricist. Pedestrian at best (haha).

This is a DP the PP is not sock puppeting . I really thank you because I keep having this same thought after listening to a Taylor song: that she never makes me think. You have laid out my thoughts so well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. Any credibility you may have had is gone once you start in with the nutso conspiracy shit about people who disagree with you being employees of the celebrity being discussed

I would normally agree, but PP says she’s in the industry and doesn’t pay to go to Taylor concerts. That kinda adds up to her working for her or being involved with someone who works for her.

I used to work in entertainment and I’d only get free tickets if the person was a client of some sort. Otherwise, I’d have to pay like everyone else.

It’s hardly a nutso conspiracy theory to say the a PP who goes to shows for free is somehow connected to Taylor Swift.

DP but I'm with you. That PP was also just being ridiculous. She was bragging about not paying for shows and she really was claiming that someone Taylor's set design on her tour (which no, she definitely did not do herself, please) is evidence of her unique greatness as a musical artist. That's ridiculous.

I never said she built or designed her sets. I also never said my husband was a designer. I never spoke of her musical greatness. honestly, I’m beginning to think you guys (specifically ) don’t like her music because you can’t understand language… I’m concerned about some of you.

Let me refresh your memory of your exact words by cutting and pasting them for you:

1) “This current tour is something else. She dreamed up and executed something that has impressed and amazed her peers. It’s dazzling ( I’m married to a scenic carpenter and he is floored by it)”

You are saying her show is dazzling, no? How should we interpret that? What is a scenic designer if not someone who works on scenes? Please explain.

2) “I work in the industry and understand very well how shows are designed and produced.”

Please do tell….

and

3) “Oh. We didn’t pay for the show. We don’t pay for shows.”

Why didn’t you pay for her show? Did you steal the tickets? Or do you know people who work with/for her?

And last but not least the most poignant words of all:

“I’m beginning to think you guys (specifically ) …..can’t understand language… I’m concerned about some of you.”

Ditto, I’m really worried for you. Do you have dementia? Or are you just a liar?

God you are embarrassing yourself.
A scenic CARPENTER is not a designer. And you don’t know the difference. Which is fine and understandable. If you don’t work in technical theatre you probably wouldn’t. But this thread is about language and you really don't seem to pick up on much of any of it.
Words have meaning.
And those are completely different jobs.

You’re really digging into the semantics. I realize that a scenic carpenter physically builds the stages as directed by the vision of the set designer. I’m just playing on the phone while nursing, not writing a thesis. It was an accidental mistype. Either way, it’s the same field and Taylor Swift had little to do with either.

Speaking of embarrassing oneself, let me repeat your statements to you again. You said:

1) “This current tour is something else. She dreamed up and executed something that has impressed and amazed her peers. It’s dazzling ( I’m married to a scenic carpenter and he is floored by it)”

Saying that Taylor “dreamed up and executed” something that “floored” your scenic CARPENTER implies that she was the one who did the set design (by “dreaming” it up) and carpentry (by “execut[ing]”) “something” that dazzled an expert on stage sets (a “scenic carpenter.”)

Why would you mention what your husband did for a living if not to use him as an authority in the matter? And why did you say Taylor came up with the ideas and executed them if not to suggest that she had a hand in the set design?

And really, I’m still dying to know more about how you didn’t pay for the show:

2) “Oh. We didn’t pay for the show. We don’t pay for shows.”

Why didn’t you pay for her show? Did you steal the tickets? Or do you know people who work with/for her?

I’m guessing it has a bit to do with this comment:

3) I work in the industry and understand very well how shows are designed and produced.”

Is that why your scenic carpenter husband was dazzled? Because you or he worked on it and scored free tickets? I’ll bet it’s something along those lines.

But you won’t admit it, like all liars, you’ll just keep changing the topic and insulting me for sniffing you out.

Semantics?
Look. Words have meaning. Words matter. You asked if I have dementia. You insulted me because you can’t understand the difference. That’s on you, babe.
You don’t think TS writes music, and you don’t think she imagined any of this show. You want to pick a fight about the absurd notion of Taylor in the shop building the set, and put words in my mouth to win an argument on an interweb-chatboard-mommy-grumblesite… ok. I can’t stop you.
I’ve spent the last two decades in production meetings. So I have experience on how these shows are created and produced. I don’t know Miss Swift, but we will have to agree to disagree about her likely level of involvement on this tour.

[Anonymous]

to the poster who “hates the romeo and juliet song”…have you listened to folklore or evermore? these two albums are a real departure from her other work. i fully understand not being into the pop or country stuff but these two albums are more mature, less autobiographical and are, in my opinion, her best work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:to the poster who “hates the romeo and juliet song”…have you listened to folklore or evermore? these two albums are a real departure from her other work. i fully understand not being into the pop or country stuff but these two albums are more mature, less autobiographical and are, in my opinion, her best work.

Yes. I agree they are better albums and more mature work, but they are still not as good or interesting as other contemporary music I listen to and would never seek them out. But yeah, they annoy me less than her other music.

Those albums came out around the same time as Fiona Apple's Fetch the Bolt Cutters and that's an example of an album that enthralled me-- I couldn't stop listening to it. Folklore/evermore were okay and if I was at someone's house and they were playing it, I'd be okay with it. But it doesn't grab me at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:to the poster who “hates the romeo and juliet song”…have you listened to folklore or evermore? these two albums are a real departure from her other work. i fully understand not being into the pop or country stuff but these two albums are more mature, less autobiographical and are, in my opinion, her best work.

Yes. I agree they are better albums and more mature work, but they are still not as good or interesting as other contemporary music I listen to and would never seek them out. But yeah, they annoy me less than her other music.

Those albums came out around the same time as Fiona Apple's Fetch the Bolt Cutters and that's an example of an album that enthralled me-- I couldn't stop listening to it. Folklore/evermore were okay and if I was at someone's house and they were playing it, I'd be okay with it. But it doesn't grab me at all.

Dp- I think that’s sort of the appeal. Unoffensive background music. I can play it in the car with my kid. Although TS does have the occasional 🤬. I wish she wouldn’t bother. It’s doesn’t make her sound more mature. She ‘s a good girl and that’s ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. Any credibility you may have had is gone once you start in with the nutso conspiracy shit about people who disagree with you being employees of the celebrity being discussed

I would normally agree, but PP says she’s in the industry and doesn’t pay to go to Taylor concerts. That kinda adds up to her working for her or being involved with someone who works for her.

I used to work in entertainment and I’d only get free tickets if the person was a client of some sort. Otherwise, I’d have to pay like everyone else.

It’s hardly a nutso conspiracy theory to say the a PP who goes to shows for free is somehow connected to Taylor Swift.

DP but I'm with you. That PP was also just being ridiculous. She was bragging about not paying for shows and she really was claiming that someone Taylor's set design on her tour (which no, she definitely did not do herself, please) is evidence of her unique greatness as a musical artist. That's ridiculous.

I never said she built or designed her sets. I also never said my husband was a designer. I never spoke of her musical greatness. honestly, I’m beginning to think you guys (specifically ) don’t like her music because you can’t understand language… I’m concerned about some of you.

Let me refresh your memory of your exact words by cutting and pasting them for you:

1) “This current tour is something else. She dreamed up and executed something that has impressed and amazed her peers. It’s dazzling ( I’m married to a scenic carpenter and he is floored by it)”

You are saying her show is dazzling, no? How should we interpret that? What is a scenic designer if not someone who works on scenes? Please explain.

2) “I work in the industry and understand very well how shows are designed and produced.”

Please do tell….

and

3) “Oh. We didn’t pay for the show. We don’t pay for shows.”

Why didn’t you pay for her show? Did you steal the tickets? Or do you know people who work with/for her?

And last but not least the most poignant words of all:

“I’m beginning to think you guys (specifically ) …..can’t understand language… I’m concerned about some of you.”

Ditto, I’m really worried for you. Do you have dementia? Or are you just a liar?

God you are embarrassing yourself.
A scenic CARPENTER is not a designer. And you don’t know the difference. Which is fine and understandable. If you don’t work in technical theatre you probably wouldn’t. But this thread is about language and you really don't seem to pick up on much of any of it.
Words have meaning.
And those are completely different jobs.

You’re really digging into the semantics. I realize that a scenic carpenter physically builds the stages as directed by the vision of the set designer. I’m just playing on the phone while nursing, not writing a thesis. It was an accidental mistype. Either way, it’s the same field and Taylor Swift had little to do with either.

Speaking of embarrassing oneself, let me repeat your statements to you again. You said:

1) “This current tour is something else. She dreamed up and executed something that has impressed and amazed her peers. It’s dazzling ( I’m married to a scenic carpenter and he is floored by it)”

Saying that Taylor “dreamed up and executed” something that “floored” your scenic CARPENTER implies that she was the one who did the set design (by “dreaming” it up) and carpentry (by “execut[ing]”) “something” that dazzled an expert on stage sets (a “scenic carpenter.”)

Why would you mention what your husband did for a living if not to use him as an authority in the matter? And why did you say Taylor came up with the ideas and executed them if not to suggest that she had a hand in the set design?

And really, I’m still dying to know more about how you didn’t pay for the show:

2) “Oh. We didn’t pay for the show. We don’t pay for shows.”

Why didn’t you pay for her show? Did you steal the tickets? Or do you know people who work with/for her?

I’m guessing it has a bit to do with this comment:

3) I work in the industry and understand very well how shows are designed and produced.”

Is that why your scenic carpenter husband was dazzled? Because you or he worked on it and scored free tickets? I’ll bet it’s something along those lines.

But you won’t admit it, like all liars, you’ll just keep changing the topic and insulting me for sniffing you out.

Semantics?
Look. Words have meaning. Words matter. You asked if I have dementia. You insulted me because you can’t understand the difference. That’s on you, babe.
You don’t think TS writes music, and you don’t think she imagined any of this show. You want to pick a fight about the absurd notion of Taylor in the shop building the set, and put words in my mouth to win an argument on an interweb-chatboard-mommy-grumblesite… ok. I can’t stop you.
I’ve spent the last two decades in production meetings. So I have experience on how these shows are created and produced. I don’t know Miss Swift, but we will have to agree to disagree about her likely level of involvement on this tour.

Yep, just as I predicted, you changed the subject again and insulted me again.

For someone so allegedly hung up on language, you can’t understand sarcasm at all, which is very amusing. I didn’t think you have dementia. I wrote that sarcastically because I know you are a LIAR.

I have no doubt that you have “spent the last two decades in production meetings. So [you] have experience on how these shows are created and produced.”

That’s precisely what I am saying. It’s funny because you keep avoiding my questions about the other comments you made.

You said you went to Taylor’s show, where your husband was so “floored” by the set design for free. Your exact words were:

“Oh. We didn’t pay for the show. We don’t pay for shows.”

Why not? I, too, know how the industry works. You don’t just get free tickets to every show that comes through town just because you tangentially work in the industry and have a scenic carpenter husband. The business wouldn’t make any money if that were case.

So answer the question, why did you get the free tickets?


It’s a rhetorical question, I know. I already know the answer and you will once again deflect, insult and lie that you are not in any way involved with Taylor and her tour.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. Any credibility you may have had is gone once you start in with the nutso conspiracy shit about people who disagree with you being employees of the celebrity being discussed

I would normally agree, but PP says she’s in the industry and doesn’t pay to go to Taylor concerts. That kinda adds up to her working for her or being involved with someone who works for her.

I used to work in entertainment and I’d only get free tickets if the person was a client of some sort. Otherwise, I’d have to pay like everyone else.

It’s hardly a nutso conspiracy theory to say the a PP who goes to shows for free is somehow connected to Taylor Swift.

DP but I'm with you. That PP was also just being ridiculous. She was bragging about not paying for shows and she really was claiming that someone Taylor's set design on her tour (which no, she definitely did not do herself, please) is evidence of her unique greatness as a musical artist. That's ridiculous.

I never said she built or designed her sets. I also never said my husband was a designer. I never spoke of her musical greatness. honestly, I’m beginning to think you guys (specifically ) don’t like her music because you can’t understand language… I’m concerned about some of you.

Let me refresh your memory of your exact words by cutting and pasting them for you:

1) “This current tour is something else. She dreamed up and executed something that has impressed and amazed her peers. It’s dazzling ( I’m married to a scenic carpenter and he is floored by it)”

You are saying her show is dazzling, no? How should we interpret that? What is a scenic designer if not someone who works on scenes? Please explain.

2) “I work in the industry and understand very well how shows are designed and produced.”

Please do tell….

and

3) “Oh. We didn’t pay for the show. We don’t pay for shows.”

Why didn’t you pay for her show? Did you steal the tickets? Or do you know people who work with/for her?

And last but not least the most poignant words of all:

“I’m beginning to think you guys (specifically ) …..can’t understand language… I’m concerned about some of you.”

Ditto, I’m really worried for you. Do you have dementia? Or are you just a liar?

God you are embarrassing yourself.
A scenic CARPENTER is not a designer. And you don’t know the difference. Which is fine and understandable. If you don’t work in technical theatre you probably wouldn’t. But this thread is about language and you really don't seem to pick up on much of any of it.
Words have meaning.
And those are completely different jobs.

You’re really digging into the semantics. I realize that a scenic carpenter physically builds the stages as directed by the vision of the set designer. I’m just playing on the phone while nursing, not writing a thesis. It was an accidental mistype. Either way, it’s the same field and Taylor Swift had little to do with either.

Speaking of embarrassing oneself, let me repeat your statements to you again. You said:

1) “This current tour is something else. She dreamed up and executed something that has impressed and amazed her peers. It’s dazzling ( I’m married to a scenic carpenter and he is floored by it)”

Saying that Taylor “dreamed up and executed” something that “floored” your scenic CARPENTER implies that she was the one who did the set design (by “dreaming” it up) and carpentry (by “execut[ing]”) “something” that dazzled an expert on stage sets (a “scenic carpenter.”)

Why would you mention what your husband did for a living if not to use him as an authority in the matter? And why did you say Taylor came up with the ideas and executed them if not to suggest that she had a hand in the set design?

And really, I’m still dying to know more about how you didn’t pay for the show:

2) “Oh. We didn’t pay for the show. We don’t pay for shows.”

Why didn’t you pay for her show? Did you steal the tickets? Or do you know people who work with/for her?

I’m guessing it has a bit to do with this comment:

3) I work in the industry and understand very well how shows are designed and produced.”

Is that why your scenic carpenter husband was dazzled? Because you or he worked on it and scored free tickets? I’ll bet it’s something along those lines.

But you won’t admit it, like all liars, you’ll just keep changing the topic and insulting me for sniffing you out.

NP. You. Are. Certifiably. Insane.
And it’s not your dislike of Taylor Swift that makes you psychotic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. Any credibility you may have had is gone once you start in with the nutso conspiracy shit about people who disagree with you being employees of the celebrity being discussed

I would normally agree, but PP says she’s in the industry and doesn’t pay to go to Taylor concerts. That kinda adds up to her working for her or being involved with someone who works for her.

I used to work in entertainment and I’d only get free tickets if the person was a client of some sort. Otherwise, I’d have to pay like everyone else.

It’s hardly a nutso conspiracy theory to say the a PP who goes to shows for free is somehow connected to Taylor Swift.

DP but I'm with you. That PP was also just being ridiculous. She was bragging about not paying for shows and she really was claiming that someone Taylor's set design on her tour (which no, she definitely did not do herself, please) is evidence of her unique greatness as a musical artist. That's ridiculous.

I never said she built or designed her sets. I also never said my husband was a designer. I never spoke of her musical greatness. honestly, I’m beginning to think you guys (specifically ) don’t like her music because you can’t understand language… I’m concerned about some of you.

Let me refresh your memory of your exact words by cutting and pasting them for you:

1) “This current tour is something else. She dreamed up and executed something that has impressed and amazed her peers. It’s dazzling ( I’m married to a scenic carpenter and he is floored by it)”

You are saying her show is dazzling, no? How should we interpret that? What is a scenic designer if not someone who works on scenes? Please explain.

2) “I work in the industry and understand very well how shows are designed and produced.”

Please do tell….

and

3) “Oh. We didn’t pay for the show. We don’t pay for shows.”

Why didn’t you pay for her show? Did you steal the tickets? Or do you know people who work with/for her?

And last but not least the most poignant words of all:

“I’m beginning to think you guys (specifically ) …..can’t understand language… I’m concerned about some of you.”

Ditto, I’m really worried for you. Do you have dementia? Or are you just a liar?

God you are embarrassing yourself.
A scenic CARPENTER is not a designer. And you don’t know the difference. Which is fine and understandable. If you don’t work in technical theatre you probably wouldn’t. But this thread is about language and you really don't seem to pick up on much of any of it.
Words have meaning.
And those are completely different jobs.

You’re really digging into the semantics. I realize that a scenic carpenter physically builds the stages as directed by the vision of the set designer. I’m just playing on the phone while nursing, not writing a thesis. It was an accidental mistype. Either way, it’s the same field and Taylor Swift had little to do with either.

Speaking of embarrassing oneself, let me repeat your statements to you again. You said:

1) “This current tour is something else. She dreamed up and executed something that has impressed and amazed her peers. It’s dazzling ( I’m married to a scenic carpenter and he is floored by it)”

Saying that Taylor “dreamed up and executed” something that “floored” your scenic CARPENTER implies that she was the one who did the set design (by “dreaming” it up) and carpentry (by “execut[ing]”) “something” that dazzled an expert on stage sets (a “scenic carpenter.”)

Why would you mention what your husband did for a living if not to use him as an authority in the matter? And why did you say Taylor came up with the ideas and executed them if not to suggest that she had a hand in the set design?

And really, I’m still dying to know more about how you didn’t pay for the show:

2) “Oh. We didn’t pay for the show. We don’t pay for shows.”

Why didn’t you pay for her show? Did you steal the tickets? Or do you know people who work with/for her?

I’m guessing it has a bit to do with this comment:

3) I work in the industry and understand very well how shows are designed and produced.”

Is that why your scenic carpenter husband was dazzled? Because you or he worked on it and scored free tickets? I’ll bet it’s something along those lines.

But you won’t admit it, like all liars, you’ll just keep changing the topic and insulting me for sniffing you out.

NP. You. Are. Certifiably. Insane.
And it’s not your dislike of Taylor Swift that makes you psychotic.

Lol, I’m the “psychotic” pp. How is asking a poster to explain how she got at least two free tickets to a very expensive show psychotic?

I’m surprised Swifties wouldn’t want to learn her magically tricks…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. Any credibility you may have had is gone once you start in with the nutso conspiracy shit about people who disagree with you being employees of the celebrity being discussed

I would normally agree, but PP says she’s in the industry and doesn’t pay to go to Taylor concerts. That kinda adds up to her working for her or being involved with someone who works for her.

I used to work in entertainment and I’d only get free tickets if the person was a client of some sort. Otherwise, I’d have to pay like everyone else.

It’s hardly a nutso conspiracy theory to say the a PP who goes to shows for free is somehow connected to Taylor Swift.

DP but I'm with you. That PP was also just being ridiculous. She was bragging about not paying for shows and she really was claiming that someone Taylor's set design on her tour (which no, she definitely did not do herself, please) is evidence of her unique greatness as a musical artist. That's ridiculous.

I never said she built or designed her sets. I also never said my husband was a designer. I never spoke of her musical greatness. honestly, I’m beginning to think you guys (specifically ) don’t like her music because you can’t understand language… I’m concerned about some of you.

Let me refresh your memory of your exact words by cutting and pasting them for you:

1) “This current tour is something else. She dreamed up and executed something that has impressed and amazed her peers. It’s dazzling ( I’m married to a scenic carpenter and he is floored by it)”

You are saying her show is dazzling, no? How should we interpret that? What is a scenic designer if not someone who works on scenes? Please explain.

2) “I work in the industry and understand very well how shows are designed and produced.”

Please do tell….

and

3) “Oh. We didn’t pay for the show. We don’t pay for shows.”

Why didn’t you pay for her show? Did you steal the tickets? Or do you know people who work with/for her?

And last but not least the most poignant words of all:

“I’m beginning to think you guys (specifically ) …..can’t understand language… I’m concerned about some of you.”

Ditto, I’m really worried for you. Do you have dementia? Or are you just a liar?

God you are embarrassing yourself.
A scenic CARPENTER is not a designer. And you don’t know the difference. Which is fine and understandable. If you don’t work in technical theatre you probably wouldn’t. But this thread is about language and you really don't seem to pick up on much of any of it.
Words have meaning.
And those are completely different jobs.

You’re really digging into the semantics. I realize that a scenic carpenter physically builds the stages as directed by the vision of the set designer. I’m just playing on the phone while nursing, not writing a thesis. It was an accidental mistype. Either way, it’s the same field and Taylor Swift had little to do with either.

Speaking of embarrassing oneself, let me repeat your statements to you again. You said:

1) “This current tour is something else. She dreamed up and executed something that has impressed and amazed her peers. It’s dazzling ( I’m married to a scenic carpenter and he is floored by it)”

Saying that Taylor “dreamed up and executed” something that “floored” your scenic CARPENTER implies that she was the one who did the set design (by “dreaming” it up) and carpentry (by “execut[ing]”) “something” that dazzled an expert on stage sets (a “scenic carpenter.”)

Why would you mention what your husband did for a living if not to use him as an authority in the matter? And why did you say Taylor came up with the ideas and executed them if not to suggest that she had a hand in the set design?

And really, I’m still dying to know more about how you didn’t pay for the show:

2) “Oh. We didn’t pay for the show. We don’t pay for shows.”

Why didn’t you pay for her show? Did you steal the tickets? Or do you know people who work with/for her?

I’m guessing it has a bit to do with this comment:

3) I work in the industry and understand very well how shows are designed and produced.”

Is that why your scenic carpenter husband was dazzled? Because you or he worked on it and scored free tickets? I’ll bet it’s something along those lines.

But you won’t admit it, like all liars, you’ll just keep changing the topic and insulting me for sniffing you out.

NP. You. Are. Certifiably. Insane.
And it’s not your dislike of Taylor Swift that makes you psychotic.

Lol, I’m the “psychotic” pp. How is asking a poster to explain how she got at least two free tickets to a very expensive show psychotic?

I’m surprised Swifties wouldn’t want to learn her magically tricks…

Aw come on, you’re into digging deep, right? Surely you can figure out why.

[Anonymous]

Just FYI-
I’m the perplexed poster who works in the business.
I never said I got free tix. I don’t know why the psycho is fixated on that. Especially since she apparently doesn’t even like TS. Who cares if, when, and, how someone attends a concert if you don’t even care for the artist.
Perplexing.
If I’m at a show, it’s because I’m working, not because I paid to be there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just FYI-
I’m the perplexed poster who works in the business.
I never said I got free tix. I don’t know why the psycho is fixated on that. Especially since she apparently doesn’t even like TS. Who cares if, when, and, how someone attends a concert if you don’t even care for the artist.
Perplexing.
If I’m at a show, it’s because I’m working, not because I paid to be there.

Now, I’m perplexed.

You just said in the post above:

“If I’m at a show, it’s because I’m working, not because I paid to be there.”

To me, that means you were working at the Taylor Swift show, when your scenic carpenter husband was “floored.”

I cannot interpret your statement any other way. As with Taylor’s lyrics there is no room for allegory or interpretation.

As someone who works for Taylor Swift, you’re not exactly an unbiased party as to her value as a musician, are you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just FYI-
I’m the perplexed poster who works in the business.
I never said I got free tix. I don’t know why the psycho is fixated on that. Especially since she apparently doesn’t even like TS. Who cares if, when, and, how someone attends a concert if you don’t even care for the artist.
Perplexing.
If I’m at a show, it’s because I’m working, not because I paid to be there.

Now, I’m perplexed.

You just said in the post above:

“If I’m at a show, it’s because I’m working, not because I paid to be there.”

To me, that means you were working at the Taylor Swift show, when your scenic carpenter husband was “floored.”

I cannot interpret your statement any other way. As with Taylor’s lyrics there is no room for allegory or interpretation.

As someone who works for Taylor Swift, you’re not exactly an unbiased party as to her value as a musician, are you?

🤦‍♀️ girl. Please start another thread. It can be any of these titles
1) what are possible careers in technical theatre?
2) who are the people working on touring concerts and how are they paid?
3) what is IATSE?
4) how are sets built? Who builds them? How are they transported?
5) what is a load in?
6) is a stagehand a roadie?
7) if I do load in, and am I guaranteed to run the show?

But none of that has anything to do with this thread. And no one cares. I’m sorry DCUM that I ever brought it up. Truly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh. We didn’t pay for the show.
We don’t pay for shows.

DP but no one cares.

This thread is so far afield at this point.

I have zero interest in discussing the set design for Taylor's tour (which I'm sure, like any other arena show of that level will be flawless) or how some Swift song kinda sorta has a similar theme to a U2 song (she has obviously did not plagiarize it, lots of artists write songs about live).

The long and the short of it is that Taylor Swift is an okay songwriter and performer with a strong work ethic and terrific business chops. Why is this insulting? It's not, it's a compliment and it's accurate.

But I do think it's insulting to other more talented, creative, and innovative musical artists to act like she's a terrific lyricist or composer. She's okay. She gets help from skilled collaborators, especially on composing. She doesn't have an epic hit with widespread appeal like other pop stars or other singersongwriters, and that's her weak spot. Everyone has at least one.

I’m the perplexed poster and I agree with most of this.

Yes, except you were the one who brought up her amazing set designs that blew away your scenic design husband, no?

It’s more than the design. The show is doing something different.
If you want to discuss it, start another thread. This is about how much everyone hates her songwriting or why she sounds like U2 or something. I’m not sure anymore.

No, it’s about how mediocre her singing, lyrics, voice and looks are. I wish she sounded like U2. Then I wouldn’t be so annoyed by having to see her mug when I was trying to watch football.

Football is boring. Taylor makes it more interesting.

Not for people who actually like football.--duh but, I'm talking about my opinion and I realize that people like football. But I haven't started a thread saying how much I hate football like Taylor Swift haters. Did I?

Taylor at games, and the broadcast focus on her, might be good for ratings and thus the NFL, networks, and advertisers. But it's a net negative for football fans. I sincerely wish she's lay lower at games and that she and Kelce hadn't driven up this interest in their relationship. And yes, they 100% encouraged the interest in the way they did the "rollout" (Taylor's word choice). Taylor, specifically, made a series of choices to drum up as much interest in her relationship as possible, from the interactions with his mom to the SNL appearances, to showing up to the Jets game with a group of at least 4 other big name celebs to ensure maximum focus.

The backlash in this thread and elsewhere about Taylor is linked to those choices. I just don't get it. her tour was already hugely successful, she didn't need the exposure or the PR. Kelce benefits from it no doubt (gearing up for his retirement from football and almost certainly aiming for a career in entertainment) but I don't see why Taylor would go to those lengths?

It's obnoxious AF and is really making me dislike Taylor as a celebrity, separate from any feelings about her music. This is Kim&Kanye level stuff.

Taylor has the right to be anywhere she wants and that includes a football game rooting for her boyfriend. Oh she will be crushed to know that you are "starting to dislike her as a celebrity" How will Taylor carry on?