
I mean I feel like it’s a theme in some songs, not in others. She definitely has themes that she feels most comfortable writing to as I think most artists, whether you are painting, writing songs music, movies, novels, do. This seems pretty common for anyone putting out art. Do you have the same criticisms of say someone like Stephen King, who really likes the horror genre and exploring the human condition through similar techniques and themes, or Quentin Tarantino, which you can really tell his style and things that he likes to explore in his movies over and over. Maybe people do have these criticisms, and we just hear so much more about Taylor because she is such a global phenomenon and is everywhere. I don’t know… I find it fascinating that she generates so much discussion on this board alone! |
Yes, 100% many people have criticized both King and Tarantino for their reliance on certain themes and images in their art, for being to repetitive, and much of their work has been panned even while other works are heralded (people love Pulp Fiction but the Hateful Eight was widely disliked, King's early work is beloved in the horror genre but his more recent novels have been more uneven and gotten far less love). One reason you will see more criticism of Swift is that she is so big and inescapable right now. This is the nature of great success, especially mainstream success. Both Tarantino and King are considered genre artists, so their audiences are smaller -- people who don't like violent films or horror novels are unlikely to make the effort to engage with either artist. As a writer, King will never have the level of fame or exposure of someone like Swift. And even Tarantino only makes a movie every few years -- there will be years that go by where his name isn't part of the conversation regarding the Oscars, for instance. But Taylor Swift is everywhere, she's inevitable. People are going to hear her music, read about her love life, hear about her Grammy nominations, she's always got a new album coming out, she's also in the press for something or other, whether it's Kelce or supporting Sophie Turner or speaking out about an issue she cares about. She is "overexposed" as they say, and that will ALWAYS result in more attention and thus more criticism for an artist. It's one reason why some artists actively avoid that level of fame, even if it means giving up some of the money that goes with it. It's a hard environment. But it's one Swift chose and aggressively pursued for herself. |
I agree with what you say, but I’d argue that Pulp Fiction is a masterpiece. I’d say the same for Salem’s Lot. For me, all of Taylor Swift’s music, from start to finish, is terribly bland and mediocre, like Wonder white bread. I wonder if her fans have ever heard, for instance, Debbie Harry’s music? She’s the real deal, beautiful, creative, artistic. I get that each generation needs its own stars, but surely, there’s got to be someone better out there than Taylor and yet she’s everywhere. I’m trying to read about what’s happening in Israel and I see that Taylor and Travis are spending Christmas in Kansas. We only know that because her PR team put it out there. She’s just awful. |
What exactly makes Debbie Harry the real deal but Taylor not? They’re both beautiful, creative, and artistic. They write songs with the same themes (heartbreak, yearning, crazy things we do for love). I don’t see a huge difference between them. Debbie is stronger vocally but not by a whole lot anymore. |
If you cannot see the massive difference in both talent and looks between Debbie Harry and Taylor Swift, then I certainly won’t be able to explain it to you. It’s like comparing a Chanel purse to a Coach one. You either see the difference in style and quality and admire it or you don’t. |
Look what you made me do isn’t about a lover…it’s about Kanye West! If you think all her songs are about lovers you’re missing the point. Check out the podcast on The Daily recently on Taylor, you might understand her and the songs better! |
Okay, so you can’t explain the massive difference. Maybe because there just isn’t. They even look similar. |
One is older and has had more time to age like a fine wine. The other is in her prime. |
I can, but you still won’t get it. Debbie Harry was a revolutionary who basically invented punk rock. Taylor Swift’s music is the opposite of revolutionary. It’s reductive and redundant. It’s the same as what Debbie Gibson sang, not Debbie Harry. As for looks, Debbie Harry has beautiful, large eyes and an aristocratic bone structure. Her birth mom was a concert pianist and it shows. Taylor Swift has tiny, mean looking slits for eyes and she looks country, which was why she started off in country. There is nothing remotely sophisticated about her. Again, if you can’t see the difference I can’t explain it to you. It’s like comparing a Gap sweater to an Akris blouse. Maybe you can’t tell the difference, but I can. |
Oh man, you’re even more psycho then I thought ![]() |
You asked what the difference was between the two. When you got an answer you didn’t like, you turned to unqualified, unsubstantiated insults. What does that say about you? Maybe you should reflect on that? |
It is about revenge not letting go and getting stuck in someone who wronged you- no not love but revenge and inability to let go is one of Taylor’s most loved themes. |
New poster but I think you just need to step back. Mean looking slits for eyes? This just getting really petty. We get it you don’t like Taylor Swift. you don’t have to give a breakdown of why you think she’s ugly. It’s just weird. |
NP. Debbie Harry has about 5 much more iconic simply better songs than any Swifty song. Songs that stand the test of time and almost everybody recognizes and even know the words to. |
HG tudor says she's an aware narc. She's dangerous |