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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m curious as to what TS has done that’s unprecedented. This seems to be a claim by a lot of Swifties. There’s this notion that she is uniquely successful, influential, etc.

It’s not record sales. Among artists that started in the 2000s, Rihanna beats her. If you take Eminem (1999 start), he does too.

It’s not cultural impact. Madonna and MJ were enormous in their heyday.

It’s not impact on the music industry. The Beatles arguably began the notion of the rock band, had the first concept album, first major merchandising contracts, first stadium tour.

So what is it?

I disagree on cultural impact. A couple of months ago my husband and I who are both in our late 40s were telling our daughters about the night Michael Jackson first performed the moonwalk. And what a different time it was because the next day all of our classmates and teachers were talking about it.

It’s just so much harder in today’s pop cultural landscape, with kids maybe looking at TikTok and having their own streaming profile, and parents being on a totally different social media platform and a totally different streaming profile. We are all watching different shows, listening to different music more on our own little devices.

You can get on a plane and watch whatever you want, versus years ago it was one movie being shown. So I think it’s not just Taylor but the general landscape, it’s kind of crazy all the generations seem to know her and how much attention she gets.

Taylor’s vinyl album sales are also pretty insane for this day and age. Yes 30 years ago you would not have blinked, but the fact that there are so many young kids actually buying vinyl records because of her is pretty impressive.

Clearly there’s lots of other artists and pop culture figures who’ve had a huge impact and maybe even the same or similar or more, but she is definitely up there with them.

Vinyl sales went up before she started to really hit it big. Yes, she has had good vinyl sales, but part of that is because she puts out so many editions of her albums.

I think of her as a contemporary version of Madonna or another diva. I simply don’t see where she’s breaking new ground.

I love Madonna, and have been to some of her concerts. I just don’t see people talking about or reacting to Madonna concerts the same way they react to Taylor’s. The Eras tour seems a little unprecedented to me. Of course other artists have had hugely successful tours, I’m not trying to say they haven’t, but I guess I just don’t understand what we’re arguing about. Taylor is big and popular. I don’t understand why that’s controversial or even subjective.

Madonna was bigger vs TS back in the day.

This thread has me thinking hard about Madonna in a way I haven't in a while. I absolutely think she was at least as big back in the early 90s as Swift is now. Potentially more because the culture was less splintered then. I do think they are both highly impactful artists who will leave lasting legacies (Swift is operating within Madonna's legacy now just as Madonna operated within a legacy paved by people like Cher and Donna Summer before her). I do think their legacies will be different though and I don't think either of their legacies will be primarily about the music. Both are and were performers on another level where their lives are a form of performance art that is tied inextricably to their onstage personas and their music. Both also embraced commercialism to a high degree while also kind of claiming to be above it or doing something beyond marketing. The parallels are really strong. I do think Madonna's Blond Ambition tour was pretty on par with the Eras tour in terms of cultural impact and global success. If you weren't alive at that time you can't understand how influential and ever present Madonna felt at the time. Though culture and media have changed a lot since then the cultural obsession with Taylor now feels similar to how Madonna was viewed then.

There are difference though. The most obvious to me is that Madonna unlike Taylor was NOT a musical act embraced across generational and cultural divides. Older people and more conservative people HATED Madonna. She was everything that was wrong with the culture. She used Catholic iconography in songs and videos featuring masturbation and teen sex and pregnancy. She released a book about fetishism including bondage and doms and threesomes. And worst of all: teens and preteens loved her music. Yup you had little 10 and 11 year old girls (including me) bopping around to Like a Virgin and Papa Don't Preach. And their parents absolutely hated it.

Today moms take their daughters to Taylor's concerts and dad's talk about what a great role model she is. Even though many of her costumes actually do reference classic Madonna costumes (in particular the bustiers which are derivative of several costumes madonna wore on both her Blonde Ambition and Girlie Show tours) they are intentionally pretty chaste and inoffensive. While she sings about relationships and breakups and occasionally swears in her lyrics it's all well within cultural propriety and you'd have to be an extreme prude and just a killjoy to argue that she's pushing the envelope with pretty much any of her music. She never sings about sex. And while per offstage persona is a bit less perfectly curated for a wide audience she's still careful -- the most scandalous thing you'll ever catch her doing is enjoying an alcoholic beverage with friends or posing for an excessive number of selfies at her birthday party.

I think it's very cool that Swift is something kids and parents can bond over without it being complicated. I also don't think you need shock value and offensiveness to make good art. I also think parents today are on average more willing to meet their kids where they are at when it comes to art and culture though I think sometimes the kids don't like that and want something that is just theirs. And I do wonder if that will mitigate how much of a change agent Taylor winds up being. I think it's hard to break new ground if you never offend anyone. I guess she offends Donald Trump by endorsing Harris and there are people in the GOP who don't like her political views. But there's nothing in her *music* for them to object to. She's pretty apolitical as a musician.

That might be why she feels bland to those of us who grew up in the 80s and 90s. Taylor's music is pretty intentionally broadly appealing. But when I was young even if you were the most successful pop star on the planet and starring in Pepsi ads and winning awards and turning ever album double platinum you were still sort of supposed to be thumbing your nose at The Man. And Taylor is The Man (and yes I am familiar with her song "If I was a Man").

I think Taylor is even more impressive BECAUSE she has blown past the splintered culture in a way that artist in the past have not had to.

Everyone talked about Madonna because that is what MTV was playing. That’s just not the case anymore and yet even people who adamantly dislike her start millions of thread about her.

Right you think that's impressive. Other people think that in order to do that she had to make herself so broadly palatable as to be bland. It's an open debate -- not everyone agrees with you and that's okay.

Also if you don't think that today's media doesn't tell people to like Taylor Swift in much the same way that mtv dictated tastes in the 80s and 90s then you are not paying attention. Pop music is and has always been a product. Taylor Swift is no less of one than any other pop star in the past. She's just being sold via algorithms and AI instead of television commercials and Top 40 radio programming.

And yet all of these artists have the same access to algorithms and AI. And aren’t nearly as successful as Taylor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m curious as to what TS has done that’s unprecedented. This seems to be a claim by a lot of Swifties. There’s this notion that she is uniquely successful, influential, etc.

It’s not record sales. Among artists that started in the 2000s, Rihanna beats her. If you take Eminem (1999 start), he does too.

It’s not cultural impact. Madonna and MJ were enormous in their heyday.

It’s not impact on the music industry. The Beatles arguably began the notion of the rock band, had the first concept album, first major merchandising contracts, first stadium tour.

So what is it?

I disagree on cultural impact. A couple of months ago my husband and I who are both in our late 40s were telling our daughters about the night Michael Jackson first performed the moonwalk. And what a different time it was because the next day all of our classmates and teachers were talking about it.

It’s just so much harder in today’s pop cultural landscape, with kids maybe looking at TikTok and having their own streaming profile, and parents being on a totally different social media platform and a totally different streaming profile. We are all watching different shows, listening to different music more on our own little devices.

You can get on a plane and watch whatever you want, versus years ago it was one movie being shown. So I think it’s not just Taylor but the general landscape, it’s kind of crazy all the generations seem to know her and how much attention she gets.

Taylor’s vinyl album sales are also pretty insane for this day and age. Yes 30 years ago you would not have blinked, but the fact that there are so many young kids actually buying vinyl records because of her is pretty impressive.

Clearly there’s lots of other artists and pop culture figures who’ve had a huge impact and maybe even the same or similar or more, but she is definitely up there with them.

Vinyl sales went up before she started to really hit it big. Yes, she has had good vinyl sales, but part of that is because she puts out so many editions of her albums.

I think of her as a contemporary version of Madonna or another diva. I simply don’t see where she’s breaking new ground.

I love Madonna, and have been to some of her concerts. I just don’t see people talking about or reacting to Madonna concerts the same way they react to Taylor’s. The Eras tour seems a little unprecedented to me. Of course other artists have had hugely successful tours, I’m not trying to say they haven’t, but I guess I just don’t understand what we’re arguing about. Taylor is big and popular. I don’t understand why that’s controversial or even subjective.

Madonna was bigger vs TS back in the day.

This thread has me thinking hard about Madonna in a way I haven't in a while. I absolutely think she was at least as big back in the early 90s as Swift is now. Potentially more because the culture was less splintered then. I do think they are both highly impactful artists who will leave lasting legacies (Swift is operating within Madonna's legacy now just as Madonna operated within a legacy paved by people like Cher and Donna Summer before her). I do think their legacies will be different though and I don't think either of their legacies will be primarily about the music. Both are and were performers on another level where their lives are a form of performance art that is tied inextricably to their onstage personas and their music. Both also embraced commercialism to a high degree while also kind of claiming to be above it or doing something beyond marketing. The parallels are really strong. I do think Madonna's Blond Ambition tour was pretty on par with the Eras tour in terms of cultural impact and global success. If you weren't alive at that time you can't understand how influential and ever present Madonna felt at the time. Though culture and media have changed a lot since then the cultural obsession with Taylor now feels similar to how Madonna was viewed then.

There are difference though. The most obvious to me is that Madonna unlike Taylor was NOT a musical act embraced across generational and cultural divides. Older people and more conservative people HATED Madonna. She was everything that was wrong with the culture. She used Catholic iconography in songs and videos featuring masturbation and teen sex and pregnancy. She released a book about fetishism including bondage and doms and threesomes. And worst of all: teens and preteens loved her music. Yup you had little 10 and 11 year old girls (including me) bopping around to Like a Virgin and Papa Don't Preach. And their parents absolutely hated it.

Today moms take their daughters to Taylor's concerts and dad's talk about what a great role model she is. Even though many of her costumes actually do reference classic Madonna costumes (in particular the bustiers which are derivative of several costumes madonna wore on both her Blonde Ambition and Girlie Show tours) they are intentionally pretty chaste and inoffensive. While she sings about relationships and breakups and occasionally swears in her lyrics it's all well within cultural propriety and you'd have to be an extreme prude and just a killjoy to argue that she's pushing the envelope with pretty much any of her music. She never sings about sex. And while per offstage persona is a bit less perfectly curated for a wide audience she's still careful -- the most scandalous thing you'll ever catch her doing is enjoying an alcoholic beverage with friends or posing for an excessive number of selfies at her birthday party.

I think it's very cool that Swift is something kids and parents can bond over without it being complicated. I also don't think you need shock value and offensiveness to make good art. I also think parents today are on average more willing to meet their kids where they are at when it comes to art and culture though I think sometimes the kids don't like that and want something that is just theirs. And I do wonder if that will mitigate how much of a change agent Taylor winds up being. I think it's hard to break new ground if you never offend anyone. I guess she offends Donald Trump by endorsing Harris and there are people in the GOP who don't like her political views. But there's nothing in her *music* for them to object to. She's pretty apolitical as a musician.

That might be why she feels bland to those of us who grew up in the 80s and 90s. Taylor's music is pretty intentionally broadly appealing. But when I was young even if you were the most successful pop star on the planet and starring in Pepsi ads and winning awards and turning ever album double platinum you were still sort of supposed to be thumbing your nose at The Man. And Taylor is The Man (and yes I am familiar with her song "If I was a Man").

I think Taylor is even more impressive BECAUSE she has blown past the splintered culture in a way that artist in the past have not had to.

Everyone talked about Madonna because that is what MTV was playing. That’s just not the case anymore and yet even people who adamantly dislike her start millions of thread about her.

Right you think that's impressive. Other people think that in order to do that she had to make herself so broadly palatable as to be bland. It's an open debate -- not everyone agrees with you and that's okay.

Also if you don't think that today's media doesn't tell people to like Taylor Swift in much the same way that mtv dictated tastes in the 80s and 90s then you are not paying attention. Pop music is and has always been a product. Taylor Swift is no less of one than any other pop star in the past. She's just being sold via algorithms and AI instead of television commercials and Top 40 radio programming.

And yet all of these artists have the same access to algorithms and AI. And aren’t nearly as successful as Taylor.

In that email her dad sent (part of a lawsuit) that was circulating a few months back he said he made her a web page at age 12 and no other young pop star had one. She and her parents were ahead of the game on social media stuff.
It definitely set her apart and contributed to her success.

Do you not want to claim that for her and her family?
Is that shameful or does it make her less than in your eyes?
It was brilliant marketing and her dad knew it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m curious as to what TS has done that’s unprecedented. This seems to be a claim by a lot of Swifties. There’s this notion that she is uniquely successful, influential, etc.

It’s not record sales. Among artists that started in the 2000s, Rihanna beats her. If you take Eminem (1999 start), he does too.

It’s not cultural impact. Madonna and MJ were enormous in their heyday.

It’s not impact on the music industry. The Beatles arguably began the notion of the rock band, had the first concept album, first major merchandising contracts, first stadium tour.

So what is it?

I disagree on cultural impact. A couple of months ago my husband and I who are both in our late 40s were telling our daughters about the night Michael Jackson first performed the moonwalk. And what a different time it was because the next day all of our classmates and teachers were talking about it.

It’s just so much harder in today’s pop cultural landscape, with kids maybe looking at TikTok and having their own streaming profile, and parents being on a totally different social media platform and a totally different streaming profile. We are all watching different shows, listening to different music more on our own little devices.

You can get on a plane and watch whatever you want, versus years ago it was one movie being shown. So I think it’s not just Taylor but the general landscape, it’s kind of crazy all the generations seem to know her and how much attention she gets.

Taylor’s vinyl album sales are also pretty insane for this day and age. Yes 30 years ago you would not have blinked, but the fact that there are so many young kids actually buying vinyl records because of her is pretty impressive.

Clearly there’s lots of other artists and pop culture figures who’ve had a huge impact and maybe even the same or similar or more, but she is definitely up there with them.

Vinyl sales went up before she started to really hit it big. Yes, she has had good vinyl sales, but part of that is because she puts out so many editions of her albums.

I think of her as a contemporary version of Madonna or another diva. I simply don’t see where she’s breaking new ground.

I love Madonna, and have been to some of her concerts. I just don’t see people talking about or reacting to Madonna concerts the same way they react to Taylor’s. The Eras tour seems a little unprecedented to me. Of course other artists have had hugely successful tours, I’m not trying to say they haven’t, but I guess I just don’t understand what we’re arguing about. Taylor is big and popular. I don’t understand why that’s controversial or even subjective.

Madonna was bigger vs TS back in the day.

This thread has me thinking hard about Madonna in a way I haven't in a while. I absolutely think she was at least as big back in the early 90s as Swift is now. Potentially more because the culture was less splintered then. I do think they are both highly impactful artists who will leave lasting legacies (Swift is operating within Madonna's legacy now just as Madonna operated within a legacy paved by people like Cher and Donna Summer before her). I do think their legacies will be different though and I don't think either of their legacies will be primarily about the music. Both are and were performers on another level where their lives are a form of performance art that is tied inextricably to their onstage personas and their music. Both also embraced commercialism to a high degree while also kind of claiming to be above it or doing something beyond marketing. The parallels are really strong. I do think Madonna's Blond Ambition tour was pretty on par with the Eras tour in terms of cultural impact and global success. If you weren't alive at that time you can't understand how influential and ever present Madonna felt at the time. Though culture and media have changed a lot since then the cultural obsession with Taylor now feels similar to how Madonna was viewed then.

There are difference though. The most obvious to me is that Madonna unlike Taylor was NOT a musical act embraced across generational and cultural divides. Older people and more conservative people HATED Madonna. She was everything that was wrong with the culture. She used Catholic iconography in songs and videos featuring masturbation and teen sex and pregnancy. She released a book about fetishism including bondage and doms and threesomes. And worst of all: teens and preteens loved her music. Yup you had little 10 and 11 year old girls (including me) bopping around to Like a Virgin and Papa Don't Preach. And their parents absolutely hated it.

Today moms take their daughters to Taylor's concerts and dad's talk about what a great role model she is. Even though many of her costumes actually do reference classic Madonna costumes (in particular the bustiers which are derivative of several costumes madonna wore on both her Blonde Ambition and Girlie Show tours) they are intentionally pretty chaste and inoffensive. While she sings about relationships and breakups and occasionally swears in her lyrics it's all well within cultural propriety and you'd have to be an extreme prude and just a killjoy to argue that she's pushing the envelope with pretty much any of her music. She never sings about sex. And while per offstage persona is a bit less perfectly curated for a wide audience she's still careful -- the most scandalous thing you'll ever catch her doing is enjoying an alcoholic beverage with friends or posing for an excessive number of selfies at her birthday party.

I think it's very cool that Swift is something kids and parents can bond over without it being complicated. I also don't think you need shock value and offensiveness to make good art. I also think parents today are on average more willing to meet their kids where they are at when it comes to art and culture though I think sometimes the kids don't like that and want something that is just theirs. And I do wonder if that will mitigate how much of a change agent Taylor winds up being. I think it's hard to break new ground if you never offend anyone. I guess she offends Donald Trump by endorsing Harris and there are people in the GOP who don't like her political views. But there's nothing in her *music* for them to object to. She's pretty apolitical as a musician.

That might be why she feels bland to those of us who grew up in the 80s and 90s. Taylor's music is pretty intentionally broadly appealing. But when I was young even if you were the most successful pop star on the planet and starring in Pepsi ads and winning awards and turning ever album double platinum you were still sort of supposed to be thumbing your nose at The Man. And Taylor is The Man (and yes I am familiar with her song "If I was a Man").

I think Taylor is even more impressive BECAUSE she has blown past the splintered culture in a way that artist in the past have not had to.

Everyone talked about Madonna because that is what MTV was playing. That’s just not the case anymore and yet even people who adamantly dislike her start millions of thread about her.

Right you think that's impressive. Other people think that in order to do that she had to make herself so broadly palatable as to be bland. It's an open debate -- not everyone agrees with you and that's okay.

Also if you don't think that today's media doesn't tell people to like Taylor Swift in much the same way that mtv dictated tastes in the 80s and 90s then you are not paying attention. Pop music is and has always been a product. Taylor Swift is no less of one than any other pop star in the past. She's just being sold via algorithms and AI instead of television commercials and Top 40 radio programming.

And yet all of these artists have the same access to algorithms and AI. And aren’t nearly as successful as Taylor.

I didn't say Taylor is successful because she uses algorithms and AI. Anymore than Madonna was successful just because she did a good job convincing MTV to show her videos. I think they have both been successful due to combination of hard work, talent, luck, and timing.

The point was that both artists have the help of marketing to teach their audience. The means are different but the concept is the same. The idea that Madonna was popular just because MTV showed her videos is as dumb as arguing Taylor Swift is popular because Disney+ carries her documentary and concert movie.

They are very similar artists actually. Which is a compliment to Taylor! Yet somehow this will be viewed as an insult and I will be yelled at for being a misogynist who refuses to give Swift her due.

[Anonymous]

I like music of all genres. I like a few of her songs, but I do find many of them bland. But the same is true for many bands or singers. I'm picky about music.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m curious as to what TS has done that’s unprecedented. This seems to be a claim by a lot of Swifties. There’s this notion that she is uniquely successful, influential, etc.

It’s not record sales. Among artists that started in the 2000s, Rihanna beats her. If you take Eminem (1999 start), he does too.

It’s not cultural impact. Madonna and MJ were enormous in their heyday.

It’s not impact on the music industry. The Beatles arguably began the notion of the rock band, had the first concept album, first major merchandising contracts, first stadium tour.

So what is it?

I disagree on cultural impact. A couple of months ago my husband and I who are both in our late 40s were telling our daughters about the night Michael Jackson first performed the moonwalk. And what a different time it was because the next day all of our classmates and teachers were talking about it.

It’s just so much harder in today’s pop cultural landscape, with kids maybe looking at TikTok and having their own streaming profile, and parents being on a totally different social media platform and a totally different streaming profile. We are all watching different shows, listening to different music more on our own little devices.

You can get on a plane and watch whatever you want, versus years ago it was one movie being shown. So I think it’s not just Taylor but the general landscape, it’s kind of crazy all the generations seem to know her and how much attention she gets.

Taylor’s vinyl album sales are also pretty insane for this day and age. Yes 30 years ago you would not have blinked, but the fact that there are so many young kids actually buying vinyl records because of her is pretty impressive.

Clearly there’s lots of other artists and pop culture figures who’ve had a huge impact and maybe even the same or similar or more, but she is definitely up there with them.

Vinyl sales went up before she started to really hit it big. Yes, she has had good vinyl sales, but part of that is because she puts out so many editions of her albums.

I think of her as a contemporary version of Madonna or another diva. I simply don’t see where she’s breaking new ground.

I love Madonna, and have been to some of her concerts. I just don’t see people talking about or reacting to Madonna concerts the same way they react to Taylor’s. The Eras tour seems a little unprecedented to me. Of course other artists have had hugely successful tours, I’m not trying to say they haven’t, but I guess I just don’t understand what we’re arguing about. Taylor is big and popular. I don’t understand why that’s controversial or even subjective.

Madonna was bigger vs TS back in the day.

This thread has me thinking hard about Madonna in a way I haven't in a while. I absolutely think she was at least as big back in the early 90s as Swift is now. Potentially more because the culture was less splintered then. I do think they are both highly impactful artists who will leave lasting legacies (Swift is operating within Madonna's legacy now just as Madonna operated within a legacy paved by people like Cher and Donna Summer before her). I do think their legacies will be different though and I don't think either of their legacies will be primarily about the music. Both are and were performers on another level where their lives are a form of performance art that is tied inextricably to their onstage personas and their music. Both also embraced commercialism to a high degree while also kind of claiming to be above it or doing something beyond marketing. The parallels are really strong. I do think Madonna's Blond Ambition tour was pretty on par with the Eras tour in terms of cultural impact and global success. If you weren't alive at that time you can't understand how influential and ever present Madonna felt at the time. Though culture and media have changed a lot since then the cultural obsession with Taylor now feels similar to how Madonna was viewed then.

There are difference though. The most obvious to me is that Madonna unlike Taylor was NOT a musical act embraced across generational and cultural divides. Older people and more conservative people HATED Madonna. She was everything that was wrong with the culture. She used Catholic iconography in songs and videos featuring masturbation and teen sex and pregnancy. She released a book about fetishism including bondage and doms and threesomes. And worst of all: teens and preteens loved her music. Yup you had little 10 and 11 year old girls (including me) bopping around to Like a Virgin and Papa Don't Preach. And their parents absolutely hated it.

Today moms take their daughters to Taylor's concerts and dad's talk about what a great role model she is. Even though many of her costumes actually do reference classic Madonna costumes (in particular the bustiers which are derivative of several costumes madonna wore on both her Blonde Ambition and Girlie Show tours) they are intentionally pretty chaste and inoffensive. While she sings about relationships and breakups and occasionally swears in her lyrics it's all well within cultural propriety and you'd have to be an extreme prude and just a killjoy to argue that she's pushing the envelope with pretty much any of her music. She never sings about sex. And while per offstage persona is a bit less perfectly curated for a wide audience she's still careful -- the most scandalous thing you'll ever catch her doing is enjoying an alcoholic beverage with friends or posing for an excessive number of selfies at her birthday party.

I think it's very cool that Swift is something kids and parents can bond over without it being complicated. I also don't think you need shock value and offensiveness to make good art. I also think parents today are on average more willing to meet their kids where they are at when it comes to art and culture though I think sometimes the kids don't like that and want something that is just theirs. And I do wonder if that will mitigate how much of a change agent Taylor winds up being. I think it's hard to break new ground if you never offend anyone. I guess she offends Donald Trump by endorsing Harris and there are people in the GOP who don't like her political views. But there's nothing in her *music* for them to object to. She's pretty apolitical as a musician.

That might be why she feels bland to those of us who grew up in the 80s and 90s. Taylor's music is pretty intentionally broadly appealing. But when I was young even if you were the most successful pop star on the planet and starring in Pepsi ads and winning awards and turning ever album double platinum you were still sort of supposed to be thumbing your nose at The Man. And Taylor is The Man (and yes I am familiar with her song "If I was a Man").

I think Taylor is even more impressive BECAUSE she has blown past the splintered culture in a way that artist in the past have not had to.

Everyone talked about Madonna because that is what MTV was playing. That’s just not the case anymore and yet even people who adamantly dislike her start millions of thread about her.

Right you think that's impressive. Other people think that in order to do that she had to make herself so broadly palatable as to be bland. It's an open debate -- not everyone agrees with you and that's okay.

Also if you don't think that today's media doesn't tell people to like Taylor Swift in much the same way that mtv dictated tastes in the 80s and 90s then you are not paying attention. Pop music is and has always been a product. Taylor Swift is no less of one than any other pop star in the past. She's just being sold via algorithms and AI instead of television commercials and Top 40 radio programming.

And yet all of these artists have the same access to algorithms and AI. And aren’t nearly as successful as Taylor.

In that email her dad sent (part of a lawsuit) that was circulating a few months back he said he made her a web page at age 12 and no other young pop star had one. She and her parents were ahead of the game on social media stuff.
It definitely set her apart and contributed to her success.

Do you not want to claim that for her and her family?
Is that shameful or does it make her less than in your eyes?
It was brilliant marketing and her dad knew it.

Ah yes this again. Every successful celebrity who got started young of course had the help and support and know how of their parents. That explains Taylor’s early days but doesn’t explain or negate her prolific songwriting and ability to put out, 20 plus years after that web page, hit albums that people across many generations love.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m curious as to what TS has done that’s unprecedented. This seems to be a claim by a lot of Swifties. There’s this notion that she is uniquely successful, influential, etc.

It’s not record sales. Among artists that started in the 2000s, Rihanna beats her. If you take Eminem (1999 start), he does too.

It’s not cultural impact. Madonna and MJ were enormous in their heyday.

It’s not impact on the music industry. The Beatles arguably began the notion of the rock band, had the first concept album, first major merchandising contracts, first stadium tour.

So what is it?

I disagree on cultural impact. A couple of months ago my husband and I who are both in our late 40s were telling our daughters about the night Michael Jackson first performed the moonwalk. And what a different time it was because the next day all of our classmates and teachers were talking about it.

It’s just so much harder in today’s pop cultural landscape, with kids maybe looking at TikTok and having their own streaming profile, and parents being on a totally different social media platform and a totally different streaming profile. We are all watching different shows, listening to different music more on our own little devices.

You can get on a plane and watch whatever you want, versus years ago it was one movie being shown. So I think it’s not just Taylor but the general landscape, it’s kind of crazy all the generations seem to know her and how much attention she gets.

Taylor’s vinyl album sales are also pretty insane for this day and age. Yes 30 years ago you would not have blinked, but the fact that there are so many young kids actually buying vinyl records because of her is pretty impressive.

Clearly there’s lots of other artists and pop culture figures who’ve had a huge impact and maybe even the same or similar or more, but she is definitely up there with them.

Vinyl sales went up before she started to really hit it big. Yes, she has had good vinyl sales, but part of that is because she puts out so many editions of her albums.

I think of her as a contemporary version of Madonna or another diva. I simply don’t see where she’s breaking new ground.

I love Madonna, and have been to some of her concerts. I just don’t see people talking about or reacting to Madonna concerts the same way they react to Taylor’s. The Eras tour seems a little unprecedented to me. Of course other artists have had hugely successful tours, I’m not trying to say they haven’t, but I guess I just don’t understand what we’re arguing about. Taylor is big and popular. I don’t understand why that’s controversial or even subjective.

Madonna was bigger vs TS back in the day.

This thread has me thinking hard about Madonna in a way I haven't in a while. I absolutely think she was at least as big back in the early 90s as Swift is now. Potentially more because the culture was less splintered then. I do think they are both highly impactful artists who will leave lasting legacies (Swift is operating within Madonna's legacy now just as Madonna operated within a legacy paved by people like Cher and Donna Summer before her). I do think their legacies will be different though and I don't think either of their legacies will be primarily about the music. Both are and were performers on another level where their lives are a form of performance art that is tied inextricably to their onstage personas and their music. Both also embraced commercialism to a high degree while also kind of claiming to be above it or doing something beyond marketing. The parallels are really strong. I do think Madonna's Blond Ambition tour was pretty on par with the Eras tour in terms of cultural impact and global success. If you weren't alive at that time you can't understand how influential and ever present Madonna felt at the time. Though culture and media have changed a lot since then the cultural obsession with Taylor now feels similar to how Madonna was viewed then.

There are difference though. The most obvious to me is that Madonna unlike Taylor was NOT a musical act embraced across generational and cultural divides. Older people and more conservative people HATED Madonna. She was everything that was wrong with the culture. She used Catholic iconography in songs and videos featuring masturbation and teen sex and pregnancy. She released a book about fetishism including bondage and doms and threesomes. And worst of all: teens and preteens loved her music. Yup you had little 10 and 11 year old girls (including me) bopping around to Like a Virgin and Papa Don't Preach. And their parents absolutely hated it.

Today moms take their daughters to Taylor's concerts and dad's talk about what a great role model she is. Even though many of her costumes actually do reference classic Madonna costumes (in particular the bustiers which are derivative of several costumes madonna wore on both her Blonde Ambition and Girlie Show tours) they are intentionally pretty chaste and inoffensive. While she sings about relationships and breakups and occasionally swears in her lyrics it's all well within cultural propriety and you'd have to be an extreme prude and just a killjoy to argue that she's pushing the envelope with pretty much any of her music. She never sings about sex. And while per offstage persona is a bit less perfectly curated for a wide audience she's still careful -- the most scandalous thing you'll ever catch her doing is enjoying an alcoholic beverage with friends or posing for an excessive number of selfies at her birthday party.

I think it's very cool that Swift is something kids and parents can bond over without it being complicated. I also don't think you need shock value and offensiveness to make good art. I also think parents today are on average more willing to meet their kids where they are at when it comes to art and culture though I think sometimes the kids don't like that and want something that is just theirs. And I do wonder if that will mitigate how much of a change agent Taylor winds up being. I think it's hard to break new ground if you never offend anyone. I guess she offends Donald Trump by endorsing Harris and there are people in the GOP who don't like her political views. But there's nothing in her *music* for them to object to. She's pretty apolitical as a musician.

That might be why she feels bland to those of us who grew up in the 80s and 90s. Taylor's music is pretty intentionally broadly appealing. But when I was young even if you were the most successful pop star on the planet and starring in Pepsi ads and winning awards and turning ever album double platinum you were still sort of supposed to be thumbing your nose at The Man. And Taylor is The Man (and yes I am familiar with her song "If I was a Man").

I think Taylor is even more impressive BECAUSE she has blown past the splintered culture in a way that artist in the past have not had to.

Everyone talked about Madonna because that is what MTV was playing. That’s just not the case anymore and yet even people who adamantly dislike her start millions of thread about her.

Right you think that's impressive. Other people think that in order to do that she had to make herself so broadly palatable as to be bland. It's an open debate -- not everyone agrees with you and that's okay.

Also if you don't think that today's media doesn't tell people to like Taylor Swift in much the same way that mtv dictated tastes in the 80s and 90s then you are not paying attention. Pop music is and has always been a product. Taylor Swift is no less of one than any other pop star in the past. She's just being sold via algorithms and AI instead of television commercials and Top 40 radio programming.

And yet all of these artists have the same access to algorithms and AI. And aren’t nearly as successful as Taylor.

In that email her dad sent (part of a lawsuit) that was circulating a few months back he said he made her a web page at age 12 and no other young pop star had one. She and her parents were ahead of the game on social media stuff.
It definitely set her apart and contributed to her success.

Do you not want to claim that for her and her family?
Is that shameful or does it make her less than in your eyes?
It was brilliant marketing and her dad knew it.

Ah yes this again. Every successful celebrity who got started young of course had the help and support and know how of their parents. That explains Taylor’s early days but doesn’t explain or negate her prolific songwriting and ability to put out, 20 plus years after that web page, hit albums that people across many generations love.

Well, I would say it was because they continued in that same manner. Taylor’s mom pulling fans out of the audience to meet her specially. The secret parties Taylor would give, the Easter eggs. It kept the buzz around her growing. They were all brilliant at it. Taylor says her company is the family business- are you saying she is lying?
Again, is this bad? They are amazing at this!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m curious as to what TS has done that’s unprecedented. This seems to be a claim by a lot of Swifties. There’s this notion that she is uniquely successful, influential, etc.

It’s not record sales. Among artists that started in the 2000s, Rihanna beats her. If you take Eminem (1999 start), he does too.

It’s not cultural impact. Madonna and MJ were enormous in their heyday.

It’s not impact on the music industry. The Beatles arguably began the notion of the rock band, had the first concept album, first major merchandising contracts, first stadium tour.

So what is it?

I disagree on cultural impact. A couple of months ago my husband and I who are both in our late 40s were telling our daughters about the night Michael Jackson first performed the moonwalk. And what a different time it was because the next day all of our classmates and teachers were talking about it.

It’s just so much harder in today’s pop cultural landscape, with kids maybe looking at TikTok and having their own streaming profile, and parents being on a totally different social media platform and a totally different streaming profile. We are all watching different shows, listening to different music more on our own little devices.

You can get on a plane and watch whatever you want, versus years ago it was one movie being shown. So I think it’s not just Taylor but the general landscape, it’s kind of crazy all the generations seem to know her and how much attention she gets.

Taylor’s vinyl album sales are also pretty insane for this day and age. Yes 30 years ago you would not have blinked, but the fact that there are so many young kids actually buying vinyl records because of her is pretty impressive.

Clearly there’s lots of other artists and pop culture figures who’ve had a huge impact and maybe even the same or similar or more, but she is definitely up there with them.

Vinyl sales went up before she started to really hit it big. Yes, she has had good vinyl sales, but part of that is because she puts out so many editions of her albums.

I think of her as a contemporary version of Madonna or another diva. I simply don’t see where she’s breaking new ground.

I love Madonna, and have been to some of her concerts. I just don’t see people talking about or reacting to Madonna concerts the same way they react to Taylor’s. The Eras tour seems a little unprecedented to me. Of course other artists have had hugely successful tours, I’m not trying to say they haven’t, but I guess I just don’t understand what we’re arguing about. Taylor is big and popular. I don’t understand why that’s controversial or even subjective.

Madonna was bigger vs TS back in the day.

This thread has me thinking hard about Madonna in a way I haven't in a while. I absolutely think she was at least as big back in the early 90s as Swift is now. Potentially more because the culture was less splintered then. I do think they are both highly impactful artists who will leave lasting legacies (Swift is operating within Madonna's legacy now just as Madonna operated within a legacy paved by people like Cher and Donna Summer before her). I do think their legacies will be different though and I don't think either of their legacies will be primarily about the music. Both are and were performers on another level where their lives are a form of performance art that is tied inextricably to their onstage personas and their music. Both also embraced commercialism to a high degree while also kind of claiming to be above it or doing something beyond marketing. The parallels are really strong. I do think Madonna's Blond Ambition tour was pretty on par with the Eras tour in terms of cultural impact and global success. If you weren't alive at that time you can't understand how influential and ever present Madonna felt at the time. Though culture and media have changed a lot since then the cultural obsession with Taylor now feels similar to how Madonna was viewed then.

There are difference though. The most obvious to me is that Madonna unlike Taylor was NOT a musical act embraced across generational and cultural divides. Older people and more conservative people HATED Madonna. She was everything that was wrong with the culture. She used Catholic iconography in songs and videos featuring masturbation and teen sex and pregnancy. She released a book about fetishism including bondage and doms and threesomes. And worst of all: teens and preteens loved her music. Yup you had little 10 and 11 year old girls (including me) bopping around to Like a Virgin and Papa Don't Preach. And their parents absolutely hated it.

Today moms take their daughters to Taylor's concerts and dad's talk about what a great role model she is. Even though many of her costumes actually do reference classic Madonna costumes (in particular the bustiers which are derivative of several costumes madonna wore on both her Blonde Ambition and Girlie Show tours) they are intentionally pretty chaste and inoffensive. While she sings about relationships and breakups and occasionally swears in her lyrics it's all well within cultural propriety and you'd have to be an extreme prude and just a killjoy to argue that she's pushing the envelope with pretty much any of her music. She never sings about sex. And while per offstage persona is a bit less perfectly curated for a wide audience she's still careful -- the most scandalous thing you'll ever catch her doing is enjoying an alcoholic beverage with friends or posing for an excessive number of selfies at her birthday party.

I think it's very cool that Swift is something kids and parents can bond over without it being complicated. I also don't think you need shock value and offensiveness to make good art. I also think parents today are on average more willing to meet their kids where they are at when it comes to art and culture though I think sometimes the kids don't like that and want something that is just theirs. And I do wonder if that will mitigate how much of a change agent Taylor winds up being. I think it's hard to break new ground if you never offend anyone. I guess she offends Donald Trump by endorsing Harris and there are people in the GOP who don't like her political views. But there's nothing in her *music* for them to object to. She's pretty apolitical as a musician.

That might be why she feels bland to those of us who grew up in the 80s and 90s. Taylor's music is pretty intentionally broadly appealing. But when I was young even if you were the most successful pop star on the planet and starring in Pepsi ads and winning awards and turning ever album double platinum you were still sort of supposed to be thumbing your nose at The Man. And Taylor is The Man (and yes I am familiar with her song "If I was a Man").

I think Taylor is even more impressive BECAUSE she has blown past the splintered culture in a way that artist in the past have not had to.

Everyone talked about Madonna because that is what MTV was playing. That’s just not the case anymore and yet even people who adamantly dislike her start millions of thread about her.

Right you think that's impressive. Other people think that in order to do that she had to make herself so broadly palatable as to be bland. It's an open debate -- not everyone agrees with you and that's okay.

Also if you don't think that today's media doesn't tell people to like Taylor Swift in much the same way that mtv dictated tastes in the 80s and 90s then you are not paying attention. Pop music is and has always been a product. Taylor Swift is no less of one than any other pop star in the past. She's just being sold via algorithms and AI instead of television commercials and Top 40 radio programming.

And yet all of these artists have the same access to algorithms and AI. And aren’t nearly as successful as Taylor.

In that email her dad sent (part of a lawsuit) that was circulating a few months back he said he made her a web page at age 12 and no other young pop star had one. She and her parents were ahead of the game on social media stuff.
It definitely set her apart and contributed to her success.

Do you not want to claim that for her and her family?
Is that shameful or does it make her less than in your eyes?
It was brilliant marketing and her dad knew it.

Ah yes this again. Every successful celebrity who got started young of course had the help and support and know how of their parents. That explains Taylor’s early days but doesn’t explain or negate her prolific songwriting and ability to put out, 20 plus years after that web page, hit albums that people across many generations love.

Well, I would say it was because they continued in that same manner. Taylor’s mom pulling fans out of the audience to meet her specially. The secret parties Taylor would give, the Easter eggs. It kept the buzz around her growing. They were all brilliant at it. Taylor says her company is the family business- are you saying she is lying?
Again, is this bad? They are amazing at this!

They are! The marketing is great. I also think she’s insanely talented. I think people wouldn’t care about the Easter eggs and the joy of meeting her if they didn’t love her music and her songs but that’s just me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll give you all an example: we are never getting back together.

It’s credited to Taylor Swift, Max Martin, and Shellback. Max Martin wrote the boy band songs in the 90s. These guys aren’t just producers; they’re songwriter-producers.

If you look at the personnel breakdown, you’ll see Taylor did the vocals, but those 2 guys did everything else.

She does not write her guitar parts, with very very few exceptions. She does essentially none of the arranging.

This isn’t unique to her. This is how most pop is done.

NP. Agree that it's not unique to Taylor Swift--or even to pop music--but I disagree to the extent that it's somehow a knock against her. Stevie Nicks has said numerous times over the years that she would write the lyrics to her songs and rely on Lindsay Buckingham or the whole band to add the music. She occasionally wrote parts of the melodies but has admitted she has no knowledge of chords or what to do beyond coming up with a few notes that she'd pluck out on a piano or guitar. That doesn't detract from her being known as a prolific songwriter or from all of the Fleetwood Mac and solo hits she is credited for.

I am middle-of-the-road on Taylor Swift and her music, but I don't think these arguments about her songwriting process or limitations are a legit criticism. Musicians who truly do it all are rare (RIP Prince!).

There’s a difference. Stevie Nicks and Lindsay Buckingham were in the band together. They were artistic collaborators.

I don’t see Taylor Swift acknowledging Max Martin or Shellback or Aaron Dessner as being artistic collaborators.

She claims to write her songs by herself.

There is literally a two hour documentary on Disney+ about her collaboration with Aaron Dessner. It is the two of them at his long Pond studio, where she recorded three albums during the pandemic, and they are talking about the music, their collaborative process, and playing together.

Look if you are not a fan I get it. But why just spout off nonsense about things that you know nothing about. Do you literally just open up your phone and be like I’m gonna make up a bunch of things about Taylor Swift ? It is beyond bizarre.

+100
Don’t like her music? Totally valid! But making up lies about her not writing her own music and not crediting her collaborators is just so immature - and easily disproven!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll give you all an example: we are never getting back together.

It’s credited to Taylor Swift, Max Martin, and Shellback. Max Martin wrote the boy band songs in the 90s. These guys aren’t just producers; they’re songwriter-producers.

If you look at the personnel breakdown, you’ll see Taylor did the vocals, but those 2 guys did everything else.

She does not write her guitar parts, with very very few exceptions. She does essentially none of the arranging.

This isn’t unique to her. This is how most pop is done.

NP. Agree that it's not unique to Taylor Swift--or even to pop music--but I disagree to the extent that it's somehow a knock against her. Stevie Nicks has said numerous times over the years that she would write the lyrics to her songs and rely on Lindsay Buckingham or the whole band to add the music. She occasionally wrote parts of the melodies but has admitted she has no knowledge of chords or what to do beyond coming up with a few notes that she'd pluck out on a piano or guitar. That doesn't detract from her being known as a prolific songwriter or from all of the Fleetwood Mac and solo hits she is credited for.

I am middle-of-the-road on Taylor Swift and her music, but I don't think these arguments about her songwriting process or limitations are a legit criticism. Musicians who truly do it all are rare (RIP Prince!).

There’s a difference. Stevie Nicks and Lindsay Buckingham were in the band together. They were artistic collaborators.

I don’t see Taylor Swift acknowledging Max Martin or Shellback or Aaron Dessner as being artistic collaborators.

She claims to write her songs by herself.

There is literally a two hour documentary on Disney+ about her collaboration with Aaron Dessner. It is the two of them at his long Pond studio, where she recorded three albums during the pandemic, and they are talking about the music, their collaborative process, and playing together.

Look if you are not a fan I get it. But why just spout off nonsense about things that you know nothing about. Do you literally just open up your phone and be like I’m gonna make up a bunch of things about Taylor Swift ? It is beyond bizarre.

But if I am not a fan, why would I watch a two-hour documentary about her? This is not like buying a car.I don't need to do more research about her to make a decision. There are only so many hours in the day.

DP. Of course you don’t have to watch or listen anything having to do with an entertainer you dislike. But if you’re the person claiming she “doesn’t write her own music” - she does - and “doesn’t credit her collaborators - she does, many times over - then we’re going to call you out on it.

If you don’t like her, why bother posting over and over?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gen X women think hating Taylor Swift is a personality and I will never understand

One of the Gen X PPs here to clarify that I only am neutral/meh about Taylor. Now her fans…

+1

I have not posted much in the thread but I don't actually have strong feelings about Swift as a person. Like others I have tried to get into her music because she seems to be the biggest thing going, but it just never clicks with me. I do like singer-songwriters like Billie Eilish and Olivia Rodrigo so I don't think it's purely a generational thing.

But reading through the thread I am reminded that I find diehard Swifties really annoying. They take any critique of Swift so personally. I don't get it. I think there is a lot of over identification with her as a personal avatar and it's not healthy. She's just an artist and celeb.

DP. I’m a fan but not a diehard “Swiftie,” whatever that means. The things people are taking issue with are the flat-out lies being spread here about how she creates her music. No one is “over-identifying” or whatever else you claim.

If someone made up lies about you, no doubt you would set them straight, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gen X women think hating Taylor Swift is a personality and I will never understand

One of the Gen X PPs here to clarify that I only am neutral/meh about Taylor. Now her fans…

+1

I have not posted much in the thread but I don't actually have strong feelings about Swift as a person. Like others I have tried to get into her music because she seems to be the biggest thing going, but it just never clicks with me. I do like singer-songwriters like Billie Eilish and Olivia Rodrigo so I don't think it's purely a generational thing.

But reading through the thread I am reminded that I find diehard Swifties really annoying. They take any critique of Swift so personally. I don't get it. I think there is a lot of over identification with her as a personal avatar and it's not healthy. She's just an artist and celeb.

Maybe. But a lot of these threads are just correcting blatant misinformation from people who don’t listen to her music or have not followed her career at all.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll give you all an example: we are never getting back together.

It’s credited to Taylor Swift, Max Martin, and Shellback. Max Martin wrote the boy band songs in the 90s. These guys aren’t just producers; they’re songwriter-producers.

If you look at the personnel breakdown, you’ll see Taylor did the vocals, but those 2 guys did everything else.

She does not write her guitar parts, with very very few exceptions. She does essentially none of the arranging.

This isn’t unique to her. This is how most pop is done.

NP. Agree that it's not unique to Taylor Swift--or even to pop music--but I disagree to the extent that it's somehow a knock against her. Stevie Nicks has said numerous times over the years that she would write the lyrics to her songs and rely on Lindsay Buckingham or the whole band to add the music. She occasionally wrote parts of the melodies but has admitted she has no knowledge of chords or what to do beyond coming up with a few notes that she'd pluck out on a piano or guitar. That doesn't detract from her being known as a prolific songwriter or from all of the Fleetwood Mac and solo hits she is credited for.

I am middle-of-the-road on Taylor Swift and her music, but I don't think these arguments about her songwriting process or limitations are a legit criticism. Musicians who truly do it all are rare (RIP Prince!).

There’s a difference. Stevie Nicks and Lindsay Buckingham were in the band together. They were artistic collaborators.

I don’t see Taylor Swift acknowledging Max Martin or Shellback or Aaron Dessner as being artistic collaborators.

She claims to write her songs by herself.

There is literally a two hour documentary on Disney+ about her collaboration with Aaron Dessner. It is the two of them at his long Pond studio, where she recorded three albums during the pandemic, and they are talking about the music, their collaborative process, and playing together.

Look if you are not a fan I get it. But why just spout off nonsense about things that you know nothing about. Do you literally just open up your phone and be like I’m gonna make up a bunch of things about Taylor Swift ? It is beyond bizarre.

But if I am not a fan, why would I watch a two-hour documentary about her? This is not like buying a car.I don't need to do more research about her to make a decision. There are only so many hours in the day.

Exactly. This is my point. If you are not a fan and you know nothing about her why are you insist on coming online and posting about a lot of things that you don’t know?

It is weird.

My point is I don't need to know any more than I already know not to be a fan. There is plenty already out there without additional research. I don't need to do in depth research about every aspect not to enjoy her. It is very weird to be on here trying to force people to consume more of her fairy EMO tripe.

Ok. Then… bye?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m curious as to what TS has done that’s unprecedented. This seems to be a claim by a lot of Swifties. There’s this notion that she is uniquely successful, influential, etc.

It’s not record sales. Among artists that started in the 2000s, Rihanna beats her. If you take Eminem (1999 start), he does too.

It’s not cultural impact. Madonna and MJ were enormous in their heyday.

It’s not impact on the music industry. The Beatles arguably began the notion of the rock band, had the first concept album, first major merchandising contracts, first stadium tour.

So what is it?

I disagree on cultural impact. A couple of months ago my husband and I who are both in our late 40s were telling our daughters about the night Michael Jackson first performed the moonwalk. And what a different time it was because the next day all of our classmates and teachers were talking about it.

It’s just so much harder in today’s pop cultural landscape, with kids maybe looking at TikTok and having their own streaming profile, and parents being on a totally different social media platform and a totally different streaming profile. We are all watching different shows, listening to different music more on our own little devices.

You can get on a plane and watch whatever you want, versus years ago it was one movie being shown. So I think it’s not just Taylor but the general landscape, it’s kind of crazy all the generations seem to know her and how much attention she gets.

Taylor’s vinyl album sales are also pretty insane for this day and age. Yes 30 years ago you would not have blinked, but the fact that there are so many young kids actually buying vinyl records because of her is pretty impressive.

Clearly there’s lots of other artists and pop culture figures who’ve had a huge impact and maybe even the same or similar or more, but she is definitely up there with them.

Vinyl sales went up before she started to really hit it big. Yes, she has had good vinyl sales, but part of that is because she puts out so many editions of her albums.

I think of her as a contemporary version of Madonna or another diva. I simply don’t see where she’s breaking new ground.

I love Madonna, and have been to some of her concerts. I just don’t see people talking about or reacting to Madonna concerts the same way they react to Taylor’s. The Eras tour seems a little unprecedented to me. Of course other artists have had hugely successful tours, I’m not trying to say they haven’t, but I guess I just don’t understand what we’re arguing about. Taylor is big and popular. I don’t understand why that’s controversial or even subjective.

Madonna was bigger vs TS back in the day.

This thread has me thinking hard about Madonna in a way I haven't in a while. I absolutely think she was at least as big back in the early 90s as Swift is now. Potentially more because the culture was less splintered then. I do think they are both highly impactful artists who will leave lasting legacies (Swift is operating within Madonna's legacy now just as Madonna operated within a legacy paved by people like Cher and Donna Summer before her). I do think their legacies will be different though and I don't think either of their legacies will be primarily about the music. Both are and were performers on another level where their lives are a form of performance art that is tied inextricably to their onstage personas and their music. Both also embraced commercialism to a high degree while also kind of claiming to be above it or doing something beyond marketing. The parallels are really strong. I do think Madonna's Blond Ambition tour was pretty on par with the Eras tour in terms of cultural impact and global success. If you weren't alive at that time you can't understand how influential and ever present Madonna felt at the time. Though culture and media have changed a lot since then the cultural obsession with Taylor now feels similar to how Madonna was viewed then.

There are difference though. The most obvious to me is that Madonna unlike Taylor was NOT a musical act embraced across generational and cultural divides. Older people and more conservative people HATED Madonna. She was everything that was wrong with the culture. She used Catholic iconography in songs and videos featuring masturbation and teen sex and pregnancy. She released a book about fetishism including bondage and doms and threesomes. And worst of all: teens and preteens loved her music. Yup you had little 10 and 11 year old girls (including me) bopping around to Like a Virgin and Papa Don't Preach. And their parents absolutely hated it.

Today moms take their daughters to Taylor's concerts and dad's talk about what a great role model she is. Even though many of her costumes actually do reference classic Madonna costumes (in particular the bustiers which are derivative of several costumes madonna wore on both her Blonde Ambition and Girlie Show tours) they are intentionally pretty chaste and inoffensive. While she sings about relationships and breakups and occasionally swears in her lyrics it's all well within cultural propriety and you'd have to be an extreme prude and just a killjoy to argue that she's pushing the envelope with pretty much any of her music. She never sings about sex. And while per offstage persona is a bit less perfectly curated for a wide audience she's still careful -- the most scandalous thing you'll ever catch her doing is enjoying an alcoholic beverage with friends or posing for an excessive number of selfies at her birthday party.

I think it's very cool that Swift is something kids and parents can bond over without it being complicated. I also don't think you need shock value and offensiveness to make good art. I also think parents today are on average more willing to meet their kids where they are at when it comes to art and culture though I think sometimes the kids don't like that and want something that is just theirs. And I do wonder if that will mitigate how much of a change agent Taylor winds up being. I think it's hard to break new ground if you never offend anyone. I guess she offends Donald Trump by endorsing Harris and there are people in the GOP who don't like her political views. But there's nothing in her *music* for them to object to. She's pretty apolitical as a musician.

That might be why she feels bland to those of us who grew up in the 80s and 90s. Taylor's music is pretty intentionally broadly appealing. But when I was young even if you were the most successful pop star on the planet and starring in Pepsi ads and winning awards and turning ever album double platinum you were still sort of supposed to be thumbing your nose at The Man. And Taylor is The Man (and yes I am familiar with her song "If I was a Man").

I think Taylor is even more impressive BECAUSE she has blown past the splintered culture in a way that artist in the past have not had to.

Everyone talked about Madonna because that is what MTV was playing. That’s just not the case anymore and yet even people who adamantly dislike her start millions of thread about her.

Right you think that's impressive. Other people think that in order to do that she had to make herself so broadly palatable as to be bland. It's an open debate -- not everyone agrees with you and that's okay.

Also if you don't think that today's media doesn't tell people to like Taylor Swift in much the same way that mtv dictated tastes in the 80s and 90s then you are not paying attention. Pop music is and has always been a product. Taylor Swift is no less of one than any other pop star in the past. She's just being sold via algorithms and AI instead of television commercials and Top 40 radio programming.

And yet all of these artists have the same access to algorithms and AI. And aren’t nearly as successful as Taylor.

In that email her dad sent (part of a lawsuit) that was circulating a few months back he said he made her a web page at age 12 and no other young pop star had one. She and her parents were ahead of the game on social media stuff.
It definitely set her apart and contributed to her success.

Do you not want to claim that for her and her family?
Is that shameful or does it make her less than in your eyes?
It was brilliant marketing and her dad knew it.

Ah yes this again. Every successful celebrity who got started young of course had the help and support and know how of their parents. That explains Taylor’s early days but doesn’t explain or negate her prolific songwriting and ability to put out, 20 plus years after that web page, hit albums that people across many generations love.

Well, I would say it was because they continued in that same manner. Taylor’s mom pulling fans out of the audience to meet her specially. The secret parties Taylor would give, the Easter eggs. It kept the buzz around her growing. They were all brilliant at it. Taylor says her company is the family business- are you saying she is lying?
Again, is this bad? They are amazing at this!

I don't know, why did her father (her manager at the time) let Scooter Brawn purchase her music catalogue. I remember her screaming and whining and I was thinking but you and your dad were at the table, wtf? That's when her entire innocent garbage fell apart for me, she's a mean girl, just like most of her celebrity friends have been shown to be, not my type of woman (or in her case, girl).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gen X women think hating Taylor Swift is a personality and I will never understand

One of the Gen X PPs here to clarify that I only am neutral/meh about Taylor. Now her fans…

+1

I have not posted much in the thread but I don't actually have strong feelings about Swift as a person. Like others I have tried to get into her music because she seems to be the biggest thing going, but it just never clicks with me. I do like singer-songwriters like Billie Eilish and Olivia Rodrigo so I don't think it's purely a generational thing.

But reading through the thread I am reminded that I find diehard Swifties really annoying. They take any critique of Swift so personally. I don't get it. I think there is a lot of over identification with her as a personal avatar and it's not healthy. She's just an artist and celeb.

Actually, I don’t really care whether people like her or not. I understand she is not everyone’s cup of tea. I think people mainly take issue with the criticisms that come from generalizations or ignorance, or even a dismissal of her themes as unimportant because they appeal to young women as though that is a bad thing. There’s a deeper body of work there underneath the radio hits. I understand not everyone has the time or willingness to listen to them. But many people still speak before they know.

Then give me an example of something I should listen to and appreciate.

DP. Listen to her last four albums - Folklore, Evermore, Midnights, and TTPD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gen X women think hating Taylor Swift is a personality and I will never understand

One of the Gen X PPs here to clarify that I only am neutral/meh about Taylor. Now her fans…

+1

I have not posted much in the thread but I don't actually have strong feelings about Swift as a person. Like others I have tried to get into her music because she seems to be the biggest thing going, but it just never clicks with me. I do like singer-songwriters like Billie Eilish and Olivia Rodrigo so I don't think it's purely a generational thing.

But reading through the thread I am reminded that I find diehard Swifties really annoying. They take any critique of Swift so personally. I don't get it. I think there is a lot of over identification with her as a personal avatar and it's not healthy. She's just an artist and celeb.

Actually, I don’t really care whether people like her or not. I understand she is not everyone’s cup of tea. I think people mainly take issue with the criticisms that come from generalizations or ignorance, or even a dismissal of her themes as unimportant because they appeal to young women as though that is a bad thing. There’s a deeper body of work there underneath the radio hits. I understand not everyone has the time or willingness to listen to them. But many people still speak before they know.

Then give me an example of something I should listen to and appreciate.

DP. Also, she has A LOT of hits. If none of those are hitting, as it were, how likely is it that the rest of the body of work is going to appeal to me. Seems unlikely.

Most of my favorites are not her “radio” hits.