Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
Taylor Swift is awful (and her music isn't even very good)
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
No, it gives off “look at me” energy. There are thousands of restaurants in London. Yet she has a first date at a restaurant next door to where her ex lives. Most normal people would try to avoid such a situation, especially with her celebrity. Taylor dated British men from 2015-2023. Why now would should decide to buy a house in London near three of her exes. The locals will not be happy with the circus she will bring to the area. |
Anonymous
|
You are missing the best part: Taylor was forced to flee the country and live in exile
During the Kanye era. She is now choosing to live in the same city. |
Anonymous
Why? Millions of people love her and if you’re a celebrity, you won’t please everyone so live your life. Nobody tells you to disappear from your life. She uses her platform for amazing things so I’m definitely a fan. |
Anonymous
|
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). NP, swift fan. I really loved this analysis and it makes sense! I think Liz Rose has basically described herself as Taylor’s editor (for example in all too well, which you quoted). Taylor came in with like 15 minutes of a song and Liz took out a pen and wrote down the best parts as Taylor sang, and then helped her build it back into a song. She collaborates well (which to me shows lack of ego, impressive at her level of fame) and works hard but definitely could continue refining lyrics and her understanding of poetry. Thanks for this, PP, it made me think and a nice escape from the rest of this thread. |
Anonymous
This was so dramatic lol. She was not forced to flee the country and live in exile. She chose to move and keep a low profile. |
Anonymous
"That took me down psychologically to a place I’ve never been before. I moved to a foreign country. I didn’t leave a rental house for a year. I was afraid to get on phone calls. I pushed away most people in my life because I didn’t trust anyone anymore. I went down really, really hard." This is like her lyrics too. Very dramatic with little introspection. |
Anonymous
+1 There wasn't even much negative attention on her after that. Many people sided with her and thought Kanye was ridiculous. And looking back, knowing what we now know about Kanye, it's obvious that had nothing at all to do with Taylor. I get she was upset by it but it really wasn't some big humiliation. It also happened at the VMAs, which is not even a real awards ceremony and always has "viral moments." It just was not that big of a deal. |
Anonymous
Who? Harry Styles? Why won’t you just use names to make this clear? |
Anonymous
Yeah, hindsight is always 20/20. I wasn't a fan of her or the Kardashians but even I knew they went frickin AFTER her when she denied giving consent to the B word. That's where the whole snake imagery is from - they posted image after image of snakes, referring to her as one. They (at the time, maybe not so much right now) wielded a lot of power, especially on social media, and Taylor got death threats. But even the VMAs, give me a break. She was a teenager, winning her first major aware (possibly?? I think?) and this grown a$$ man snatches it away from her. She thought, when the crowd was booing, they were booing her. That's a big deal. Immaletyou finish is still said today as some kind of joke. It was a big deal. |
Anonymous
No I read it correctly. The pp thinks she’s overexposed AND thinks the shadowy cabal of Taylor Swift comms dept is pushing stories to “Babushka’s Monthly” And that’s hysterical Honestly this thread has uncovered a previously unfathomable Venn diagram of conspiratorial thinkers and anti Swifties. And frankly I’m so glad I’m here for it! It’s been a real treat! |
Anonymous
Why do you think a Taylor Swift story was on the cover of a Russian language Senior Citizen magazine that’s only available by subscription? You can’t buy this one at the store or in the stands, so people cannot be charmed by her great beauty to buy it. Its circulation is very small and limited to mostly Jewish Russian speaking Senior Citizens living in America. (They children and grandchildren do not read these.) Most of the ads are for Russian speaking doctors, lawyers and home health attendant services. It barely makes any money. Why do you think the editor decided to put Taylor on the cover? |
Anonymous
It was 2009. She was twenty. She’s grown up a lot in 14 years. |
Anonymous
Well I think it obvious! The editor secretly works for Taylor Swift!! Oh wait wait wait! No, but he was handed a fat unmarked envelope in the depths of a parking garage late at night. There, a mysterious tall blonde woman, sporting a bold red lip, told him exactly what to print last month in “Matronly Matryoshka Monthly”. |
Anonymous
I admire the obtuseness of rabid Taylor fans. It’s not that the above editor works for Taylor. It’s that her team has decided to release articles about her for little to no money. If the editor of some small obscure newspaper publishes an article about her (to fill space in an ad based tiny circulation paper), he or she doesn’t have to pay the usual fees. You have to be very unaware of how the publishing industry works to not get what’s going on here. Taylor is the definition of overexposed and it’s because her team wants it that way. The bottom line is that she never made the leap from female tweens and their moms to the general public. And her team is desperate to get her there before she hits 40 and loses the tween audience. And if that means releasing her articles for free, so be it. It’s the wrong angle, in my opinion. |
Anonymous
Actually she was 19. A teenager. And yes of course “she’s grown up a lot” since then. |