Gen Xers - Do you find Taylor Swift’s music bland?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her songs do not all sound the same, people. She has more variety in her music than most other artists.

But, they do to me. Absolutely she has this pattern where there are some chords and she talk sings a line and then holds out the note and the end and will sometimes glide the note up at the end of the line. Or whisper sing at three lines in the same patterns and at ‘the same volume and bust out withI want to kill you.

It is to the point where I feel honestly browbeaten for having this opinion, but they sound the same to me.

I’m a fan and found the songs on the newest album to be similar. I think the issue is not with Taylor but with Antonoff’s production (and Dessner now, to a lesser extent). Red and Folklore are considered two of her best albums in part because she shifted sound. I thought Midnights was going to have a 70s vibe based on early promotional materials and was disappointed the album was more Antonoff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her songs do not all sound the same, people. She has more variety in her music than most other artists.

I wouldn't say Taylor Swift has more variety than most. That's an exaggeration.

Hmm. Maybe the problem with the lack of variety is the whole pop scene. We're in a period of young female singers with talky/yell-y singing and synth backbeats. Or a lower, talky confessional sound.

And the whispery voices! So much tremblng air.

Taylor wouldn't be knocked for lack of variety if more artists were bringing strong offerings to the table. In that world, Taylor could stay in her lane writing lyrics about First Love for the next 20 years. No one would care. But we need some palette cleansers!

So maybe we can catch a break on the male pop scene? It's a WASTELAND there. Even less interest.

Not a ton of artists have a range of country/pop/folk albums and songs. And again, the (willful, IMO) ignorance about her range of songwriting themes abound, although love and lost love is probably the biggest inspiration for most songwriting in general.

As a fan of Hank Williams, Johnny Cash, Patsy Cline, and Merle Haggard, I just wouldn't call anything that Taylor Swift has every done as "country." Though I'd say the same about Jelly Roll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. Gen Xer (born in 76). It’s like if I grew up with this music in my formative years (HS/college/20s) I would get the attachment. But I truly am mystified by the insane popularity. She’s not bad or anything, and clearly she has quite the following. But she’s honestly pretty mid, as the kids say, in terms of lyrics, voice, appearance, music.

Many of the female pop singers are average looking these days in terms of appearance. Chappell Roan, Billie Eilish, Meghan Trainor, Miley Cyrus, Tate Mcrae, that seems to be what their fans want. The music is also pretty bland.

Chappell and Billie are not what I would call bland at all. Nor Taylor. Maybe we different definitions of it? To me, when music is inspiring in some way or makes me feel things, it is not bland. I am not as familiar with Meghan or Tate. Miley is great but maybe on the bland side to me? Still like her!

None of it is memorable. Nobody will be listening to it in 20 years.

Except that Taylor has been around for nearly that long, clown.

And most people, except for her die hard fans, would struggle to name a song.

Not even close to a die hard fan but can name several because I’m not an idiot living under a rock.

So, you’re a fan. That says it all. Can your parents name songs? Are they idiots living under a rock?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her songs do not all sound the same, people. She has more variety in her music than most other artists.

I wouldn't say Taylor Swift has more variety than most. That's an exaggeration.

Hmm. Maybe the problem with the lack of variety is the whole pop scene. We're in a period of young female singers with talky/yell-y singing and synth backbeats. Or a lower, talky confessional sound.

And the whispery voices! So much tremblng air.

Taylor wouldn't be knocked for lack of variety if more artists were bringing strong offerings to the table. In that world, Taylor could stay in her lane writing lyrics about First Love for the next 20 years. No one would care. But we need some palette cleansers!

So maybe we can catch a break on the male pop scene? It's a WASTELAND there. Even less interest.

Not a ton of artists have a range of country/pop/folk albums and songs. And again, the (willful, IMO) ignorance about her range of songwriting themes abound, although love and lost love is probably the biggest inspiration for most songwriting in general.

As a fan of Hank Williams, Johnny Cash, Patsy Cline, and Merle Haggard, I just wouldn't call anything that Taylor Swift has ever done as "country." Though I'd say the same about Jelly Roll.

You're identifying “country” as 4 artists born on average about 100 years ago. The fanbase has changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her songs do not all sound the same, people. She has more variety in her music than most other artists.

I wouldn't say Taylor Swift has more variety than most. That's an exaggeration.

Hmm. Maybe the problem with the lack of variety is the whole pop scene. We're in a period of young female singers with talky/yell-y singing and synth backbeats. Or a lower, talky confessional sound.

And the whispery voices! So much tremblng air.

Taylor wouldn't be knocked for lack of variety if more artists were bringing strong offerings to the table. In that world, Taylor could stay in her lane writing lyrics about First Love for the next 20 years. No one would care. But we need some palette cleansers!

So maybe we can catch a break on the male pop scene? It's a WASTELAND there. Even less interest.

Not a ton of artists have a range of country/pop/folk albums and songs. And again, the (willful, IMO) ignorance about her range of songwriting themes abound, although love and lost love is probably the biggest inspiration for most songwriting in general.

As a fan of Hank Williams, Johnny Cash, Patsy Cline, and Merle Haggard, I just wouldn't call anything that Taylor Swift has ever done as "country." Though I'd say the same about Jelly Roll.

You're identifying “country” as 4 artists born on average about 100 years ago. The fanbase has changed.

Well, like the Republican Party, perhaps they should find a new name for it.

[Anonymous]

Born in 1976 and I enjoy Taylor Swift’s music. A LOT

[Anonymous]

I don’t listen to her unless my kid is in car. I get why folks like her and think she’s a good role model. I don’t have enough interest to delve in to more than what’s on the radio. I also totally get that. This is sort of a dividing line between generations while some Gen X folks do like her, she’s iconic and wildly more impactful for younger people. That makes me feel a little old, but that’s OK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have to say that I find Taylor Swift’s extreme popularity to be one of the great mysteries of the 21st century. I find her voice and songs to be the epitome of the most boring and bland of pop songs.

Is this basically a generational thing? Is she popular among Millenials because they grew up hearing about her life and romances and just took more of an interest in what she had to say in her supposed “genius” song lyrics? I honestly don’t even know if her lyrics even are that great because I find the melodies and her voice so boring I don’t even care to put that much thought into what she’s saying

And yes, I realize she has gotten better in recent years. I actually do like Folklore, but she was insanely popular for practically two decades prior, so I don’t think it really counts.

Completely agree with your assessment- I am Gen X and neither I not my teens/tween like TS songs-
( some we have grown to like or tolerate because they are on radio all the time).

I u sweat and her popularity but can’t same the same for her music- most of her songs are similar and very teenage focused and as she has grown her songs have not matured much.

I have nothing against her as a creator- I have read and listened to her in interviews and she is definitely a smart woman and multi-talented. however, her music is ok. Some of them are ear-worms and have catchy tune, but rest are just ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her songs do not all sound the same, people. She has more variety in her music than most other artists.

But, they do to me. Absolutely she has this pattern where there are some chords and she talk sings a line and then holds out the note and the end and will sometimes glide the note up at the end of the line. Or whisper sing at three lines in the same patterns and at ‘the same volume and bust out withI want to kill you.


Well said- this is exactly how I feel!

I know the TS fans outnumber people like you and me but I am just stating my opinion - I do not hate or dislike her - I just don’t find her music or singing as good as many many other artists.



It is to the point where I feel honestly browbeaten for having this opinion, but they sound the same to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her songs do not all sound the same, people. She has more variety in her music than most other artists.

I wouldn't say Taylor Swift has more variety than most. That's an exaggeration.

Hmm. Maybe the problem with the lack of variety is the whole pop scene. We're in a period of young female singers with talky/yell-y singing and synth backbeats. Or a lower, talky confessional sound.

And the whispery voices! So much tremblng air.

Taylor wouldn't be knocked for lack of variety if more artists were bringing strong offerings to the table. In that world, Taylor could stay in her lane writing lyrics about First Love for the next 20 years. No one would care. But we need some palette cleansers!

So maybe we can catch a break on the male pop scene? It's a WASTELAND there. Even less interest.

Not a ton of artists have a range of country/pop/folk albums and songs. And again, the (willful, IMO) ignorance about her range of songwriting themes abound, although love and lost love is probably the biggest inspiration for most songwriting in general.

As a fan of Hank Williams, Johnny Cash, Patsy Cline, and Merle Haggard, I just wouldn't call anything that Taylor Swift has ever done as "country." Though I'd say the same about Jelly Roll.

You're identifying “country” as 4 artists born on average about 100 years ago. The fanbase has changed.

Her first album was considered country and she won multiple Country Music Awards. About four years into her career, her mother went onstage at a country music awards show and thanked the country music community for "taking care" of Taylor. It was a goodbye message to country music and the beginning of her entry to pop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Male, born in 1967

My tastes run from indie rock to Americana to classic jazz to world to retro soul to singer songwriter fare to many others genres.

I recognize she is good at what she does, but I don't particularly care for her pop genre (don't hate it, but don't seek it out). Folklore was my favorite album of hers, but there's tons of singer-songwriter albums I'd rate just as good or better.

Swiftie here - this is very fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her songs do not all sound the same, people. She has more variety in her music than most other artists.

I wouldn't say Taylor Swift has more variety than most. That's an exaggeration.

Hmm. Maybe the problem with the lack of variety is the whole pop scene. We're in a period of young female singers with talky/yell-y singing and synth backbeats. Or a lower, talky confessional sound.

And the whispery voices! So much tremblng air.

Taylor wouldn't be knocked for lack of variety if more artists were bringing strong offerings to the table. In that world, Taylor could stay in her lane writing lyrics about First Love for the next 20 years. No one would care. But we need some palette cleansers!

So maybe we can catch a break on the male pop scene? It's a WASTELAND there. Even less interest.

Not a ton of artists have a range of country/pop/folk albums and songs. And again, the (willful, IMO) ignorance about her range of songwriting themes abound, although love and lost love is probably the biggest inspiration for most songwriting in general.

As a fan of Hank Williams, Johnny Cash, Patsy Cline, and Merle Haggard, I just wouldn't call anything that Taylor Swift has ever done as "country." Though I'd say the same about Jelly Roll.

You're identifying “country” as 4 artists born on average about 100 years ago. The fanbase has changed.

Her first album was considered country and she won multiple Country Music Awards. About four years into her career, her mother went onstage at a country music awards show and thanked the country music community for "taking care" of Taylor. It was a goodbye message to country music and the beginning of her entry to pop.

Taylor came up in country at a time when it had greatly distanced itself from it's origins -- most of the top country acts at the time had very little twang and eschewed a lot of the traditional country instrumentations. It was a smoother and more mainstream version of country music. What made it country was the storytelling aspect of the music and lyrics and some references to classic country music in the melodies and compositions. And the fact that it came out of Nashville. A song like Romeo & Juliet is pretty quintessentially country of that era even though to my ear it doesn't sound like "country music." It's what a lot of artists out of Nashville were doing at the time.

That's part of what helped Taylor make the leap to mainstream pop so easily -- she was already essentially making pop music and she decided to just liberate herself of the requirements of the Nashville market (including especially in how she marketed her persona -- the country music scene can be incredibly limiting for women).

In 2024 that first album still sounds country to me but I think the scene has shifted enough that I'm not sure that's where she'd be categorized now. I think she might have ended up in indie rock which is a really expansive category that can include acts like Waxahatchee as well as people like Father John misty or Lana Del Ray. It's just super broad. But there is a lot of classical country and bluegrass influence in a lot of it. The reason I think she'd wind up there now is because of her emphasis on lyrics which make her unusual in the pop world (most major pop acts like Charlie XCX or Dua Lipa have much more simplistic lyrics and the focus is on hooks and dance beats). It's actually sort of anomalous that Taylor wound up a pop act and I think the result of (1) her look which had pop producers excited because she was so appealing to key pop demographics and (2) her and her family's ambitions which I think would have viewed a more indie rock type of career as too low level and not lucrative enough. Indie rock bands generally make most of their money off of touring as opposed to album sales unless they hit a level of fame where they can license their music which can be lucrative. Taylor of course now makes a ton of music off touring but early in her career her success was based off of studio albums and especially because of her age an inexperience on stage that was pretty essential for her -- it allowed her to cultivate a stage presence more slowly while relying on her songwriting and studio ability. And take a ton of music and dance lessons (she's never been a virtuosic musician or singer and she's well known to be a mediocre dancer). Turning Taylor Swift into Taylor Swift took a lot of work and she wasn't like some of these Disney pop grads who are ready to hop on an arena stage and wow a crowd at age 15 because she did not have that kind of performance ability at that age. She was still sitting down at the piano or with her guitar and tenderly singing songs from her journal at that age (even if she was writing at a high level and selling a ton of music for someone that age -- her songwriting skill was virtuosic but that doesn't mean she was performance ready).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her songs do not all sound the same, people. She has more variety in her music than most other artists.

I wouldn't say Taylor Swift has more variety than most. That's an exaggeration.

Hmm. Maybe the problem with the lack of variety is the whole pop scene. We're in a period of young female singers with talky/yell-y singing and synth backbeats. Or a lower, talky confessional sound.

And the whispery voices! So much tremblng air.

Taylor wouldn't be knocked for lack of variety if more artists were bringing strong offerings to the table. In that world, Taylor could stay in her lane writing lyrics about First Love for the next 20 years. No one would care. But we need some palette cleansers!

So maybe we can catch a break on the male pop scene? It's a WASTELAND there. Even less interest.

Not a ton of artists have a range of country/pop/folk albums and songs. And again, the (willful, IMO) ignorance about her range of songwriting themes abound, although love and lost love is probably the biggest inspiration for most songwriting in general.

As a fan of Hank Williams, Johnny Cash, Patsy Cline, and Merle Haggard, I just wouldn't call anything that Taylor Swift has ever done as "country." Though I'd say the same about Jelly Roll.

You're identifying “country” as 4 artists born on average about 100 years ago. The fanbase has changed.

Her first album was considered country and she won multiple Country Music Awards. About four years into her career, her mother went onstage at a country music awards show and thanked the country music community for "taking care" of Taylor. It was a goodbye message to country music and the beginning of her entry to pop.

Taylor came up in country at a time when it had greatly distanced itself from it's origins -- most of the top country acts at the time had very little twang and eschewed a lot of the traditional country instrumentations. It was a smoother and more mainstream version of country music. What made it country was the storytelling aspect of the music and lyrics and some references to classic country music in the melodies and compositions. And the fact that it came out of Nashville. A song like Romeo & Juliet is pretty quintessentially country of that era even though to my ear it doesn't sound like "country music." It's what a lot of artists out of Nashville were doing at the time.

That's part of what helped Taylor make the leap to mainstream pop so easily -- she was already essentially making pop music and she decided to just liberate herself of the requirements of the Nashville market (including especially in how she marketed her persona -- the country music scene can be incredibly limiting for women).

In 2024 that first album still sounds country to me but I think the scene has shifted enough that I'm not sure that's where she'd be categorized now. I think she might have ended up in indie rock which is a really expansive category that can include acts like Waxahatchee as well as people like Father John misty or Lana Del Ray. It's just super broad. But there is a lot of classical country and bluegrass influence in a lot of it. The reason I think she'd wind up there now is because of her emphasis on lyrics which make her unusual in the pop world (most major pop acts like Charlie XCX or Dua Lipa have much more simplistic lyrics and the focus is on hooks and dance beats). It's actually sort of anomalous that Taylor wound up a pop act and I think the result of (1) her look which had pop producers excited because she was so appealing to key pop demographics and (2) her and her family's ambitions which I think would have viewed a more indie rock type of career as too low level and not lucrative enough. Indie rock bands generally make most of their money off of touring as opposed to album sales unless they hit a level of fame where they can license their music which can be lucrative. Taylor of course now makes a ton of music off touring but early in her career her success was based off of studio albums and especially because of her age an inexperience on stage that was pretty essential for her -- it allowed her to cultivate a stage presence more slowly while relying on her songwriting and studio ability. And take a ton of music and dance lessons (she's never been a virtuosic musician or singer and she's well known to be a mediocre dancer). Turning Taylor Swift into Taylor Swift took a lot of work and she wasn't like some of these Disney pop grads who are ready to hop on an arena stage and wow a crowd at age 15 because she did not have that kind of performance ability at that age. She was still sitting down at the piano or with her guitar and tenderly singing songs from her journal at that age (even if she was writing at a high level and selling a ton of music for someone that age -- her songwriting skill was virtuosic but that doesn't mean she was performance ready).

I agree with most of what you said, except about her songwriting skills.

She isn’t a virtuoso at all at songwriting, and the evidence of that is that she very rarely writes her melodies or instrumentation.

She does producer-led music. Her producer—whether it’s Jack Antonoff, Max Martin, or Aaron Dessner—sends her backing tracks with the instrumentation and sometimes the melody already done. She adds lyrics.

That’s why she has so many songwriting credits on her songs. It’s also why she’s able to tour and make albums almost at the same time. Other people do most of the work.

Rick Beato (a producer and expert on the music industry) discusses this. The video about it is also about the Beatles, so if you don’t care about that part, skip to 2:30.

https://youtu.be/DxrwjJHXPlQ?si=kGYdhegizkkLebHj

[Anonymous]

Very mid, as the kids say.

[Anonymous]

It doesn't matter if anyone today finds Taylor Swift's music bland. 20 to 25 years from now she'll be hailed as a music icon. And people will talk about the good old days when artists wrote and sang great songs like Taylor Swift.