Taylor Swift is one of the great promotion machines of all time. It's rare to see an artist, and her handlers, so perfectly measure every single move their 'product' makes, insuring mega-sales and success. That is their (and her) greatest skill-set.

I remember years back first seeing her performing a song on some TV show. Her singing was mediocre, her guitar playing was no better. She's improved a bit since then, but not really all that much. To me, she represents the increasing degradation of popular music as an art form. If a bar of Ivory Soap could play piano and guitar you'd have the next Taylor Swift. On the upside though, she does know how to give her fans exactly what they want, and never veers from that. However, what that produces musically is the same song, over and over and over again. The same melodic structure from one song to the next. The same lyrical drivel that somehow actual human beings confuse with being an art form. I can listen to roughly ten minutes of Taylor Swift, then have to turn it off. It starts to feel as if someone is pouring lye on my brain cells.

I recently pulled out a copy of the "Blue" album by Joni Mitchell. I must have heard that record hundreds of times, but hadn't listened to it in awhile. I honestly consider it one of the great works of art in popular music. Listen to that record, then put on some Taylor Swift. It's like the difference between having a 5 Star Michelin dinner and living it up on a microwavable Swanson's Salisbury steak. The music industry has gone from endeavoring to produce and nurture great artists, to making billboards out of those who want to mimic and pretend to be artists. I've little doubt that someday those who are currently so enamored with Taylor Swift will go back to some of her records, and be asking themselves 'what the hell was I thinking'?

 

Exactly!! It’s so beyond baffling. By all accounts, she’s as popular (or more) than the Madonnas and Jacksons of the day - without an ounce of the songwriting talent, originality or charisma.

But like you said, she is the industry’s greatest product and promotion machine. Something the Swiftettes eat up, unfiltered.

I have tried…and failed. Drivel is such an apt description.

 

A popular woman with no dignity, no integrity, no intelligence, no self-awareness and no self-respect.
A true representation of USA.
Today's Merlin Monroe.

 

She is more advertised than the paracetamol, this is the moment when I am switching off TV or skipping news while reading. They will blow her out if they don’t stop. I am already fed up with it even if she were good or not… Honestly I don’t recognise her songs but her name in the news title makes me sick… This is like brainwashing.

Let her do a masterclass how fight off those dodgy labels with screwing up contracts to contribute the people (any label rep here?). Then she would be great! Lead the people, don’t blind them!

 

Last edited: Jan 13, 2024

Who is Taylor Swift?
Good question!

Taylor Swift was Satanist Doppelgänger.
The real Taylor Swift is imprisoned underground.
Who you see now is a SATANIST!

So who is Taylor Swift?
Taylor Swift is impersonation of the DEVIL!

And when she killed someone she sing this song as a message to Beelzebub!

 

Someone is watching Fantano...

Comparing Joni Mitchell to Taylor Swift makes no sense. Joni Mitchell was never a pop star, even at her biggest.

Taylor Swift is in Michael Jackson territory. Would you compare MJ to James Taylor? No, cause it wouldn't make any sense.

 

Actually, never even heard of "Fantano". Had to Google him after you mentioned him. I see he's a youtuber. If I have some time this weekend will check him out and see if I can understand your reference.

Disagree with your remarks about James Taylor and Joni Mitchell. As an example, both were on the cover of Time Magazine, which in its day was like hitting the pinnacle of pop stardom. I think you're confusing the difference in the 'pop industry machinery' between back then and now. When Springsteen hit the cover of Time and Newsweek it was considered the be all and end all, though today it probably wouldn't mean anywhere near as much as it did back then. The machinery today, particularly with the internet, makes it a much different ballgame, where none of those older artists could have made the kind of bucks or coverage Taylor Swift now pulls in. However,Joni had hit songs, and is listed near the top on Rolling Stone's greatest albums of all time. That's hardly an unknown name, and I would consider that pop stardom for someone of that era.

If what you're referring to is $$ earnings for these artists, also a much different ballgame today due to streaming and Spotify. Today you have a exceedingly small handful of mega-artists at the top earning stupid money and everyone else collecting pennies from streaming. Years ago a large percentage of recording artists could make some money through the support and advances of a label. The financial structure was spread around far more evenly. Today it's just a few 'haves' and tons of 'have-nots' who can't even earn a living due to the structure of streaming payouts and lack of label support and advances. When I consider that, I don't even really know why most new artists even bother - the industry's become a dead end which leaves the star making machinery to focus on just a few people like Swift while ignoring just about everyone else. This is yet another reason why the record label system we all used to hate turned out to be a much better way of doing things than where we've landed today.

Finally, both Joni Mitchell and Taylor Swift began as sort of 'folkie' type artists doing most of their work accompanied on acoustic guitar. Both moved out of that; Swift to dressing in glitter and pretending she can dance, Joni Mitchell moved on to critically praised jazz influenced pop recordings.So yeah, I see a basis for comparison on several levels, when taking into account the differences in star making machinery in the 60's, 70's and 80's as compared to today.

 

Last edited: Jan 13, 2024

There is nothing special about Miss Taylor and the fact that you see her name all the time says more about 'the channels' you visit I guess.
Regardless of the above: she is an artist. Some artists are more popular than others. It says nothing about their quality as an artist.
There is a lot of publicity about her that has nothing to do with her music in it's core. Boyfriend, legal issues, death at concert in South America, etc. That's how we treat celebrities. Nothing new. Makes them nothing more or less than any other artist who creates same quality of music but is, as a person, less interesting to the (tabloid) media.

 

I absolutely agree with you that comparing Taylor Swift to Joni Mitchell is absurd. In my mind Swift is all about crafting tunes that will resonate with a very particular audience while Joni created artful weavings in sound and thought that had girth and weight, explored the workings of society and stirred the soul of her listeners to explore places that might not tread, and all the while remaining faithful to her process, changing up and exploring as the muse deemed fit (Mingus for example). However, Pop is about popular music of the masses and Joni was a great popular artist who sold millions of records. "Help Me" went to #7 on the singles charts and I believe all her albums went either Platinum, Gold or Silver. The times change and what charts today is not nearly as it was back then (there was trash then too though).

I never listen to Taylor Swift and might not recognize one of her songs if I heard one. I'm sure that I have listened a few but they obviously haven't made any kind of impression. I don't think that if Jaco was alive he'd have gigged with her.

 

I appreciate the effort, but you didn't need to explain me any of this

I'm not talking about any of those things you mentioned, and I'm talking about all of them..

Let me put it this way : there are some pop stars who reach a level of fame that very few have ever had access to. Elvis, The Beatles, MJ, Madonna.. even people like Prince or Bowie didn't get to that level.

This is NOT a metric about the quality of the music, their talent etc. even though they all play a part in it.
This is about being so famous that.. you're more famous than Jesus.

I'm perfectly aware that the music industry has changed enormously -in my opinion it's a misnomer to call it music industry, as it's a unholy child of the music AND tech industries in its current form. I've talked to several people who are in the marketing/management end of the business, and they talk about The Algorithm the way religious people talk about god lol.

So yeah, we can't compare the star making system of the 70s to today. Or any other aspect of the music industry, except the only constant that hasn't changed : the bottom line is profit.

Going back to my original statement, Joni Mitchell, whose music I adore, has never been THAT kind of larger than life pop star. Yes, she was more famous than most musicians in history, but she didn't get to that ultimate level of fame.

Like her or not, Swift is on that level.

Again, I'm aware the dynamics of the business are totally different today, but we should also remember that back in the day, when an artist showed potential to generate huge profits, labels would go gung-ho with the marketing too.

We don't have a way to measure fame adjusted for time, like money and inflation. What would MJ's fame be if transposed to our present day? No way to know. Conversely, if we took Swift's current fame and adjusted it to the 70s, what would it look like?

Mind you, I'm not talking about musical quality or any subjective metrics at all. This is purely about fame.

The year Blue came out it sold less than Christmas songs by Elvis. Was it a better record than Blue? No. Elvis, even though he was way past his prime, was still riding the wave of god-level fame of his youth, and anything with his name on it would sell.

Anyway, do I like Swift's music?

No.

Do I think she's talented?

Definitely.
I don't care for her music at all, but she's been writing very catchy pop songs with relatable stories for a long time now. Like another comment said, it's no easy task to write for teenagers, especially past the age of 30, without being corny or borderline creepy. Swift does that better than anyone.

She has talent, she has a strong personality, she is extremely smart with her image, and she's reached a level of fame that only a select few has before.

The fact that I couldn't name one song of hers (except one that I only know because I watched a comedy video explaining why it sucked) doesn't change anything.

 

I get the Joni / Swift reference in the sense that Swift started out also as a folk-country singer-songwriter.

I didn’t get the hype back then either, by the way

 

I'm not denying she was a successful popular artist, not for one second.

But there's a difference, IMO, between that and a pop STAR. I've tried to explain it more in my comment above.

On the contrary, towards the end of his life he would've gigged with anyone willing to throw him a bone, sadly.

And you know what? I really believe Swift is a smart enough person who would've let Jaco steal some of the spotlight during shows. Maybe not as much as Joni let him go wild, but she would've definitely incorporated his talent into her show.

 

She is the last breath of Pop Music which is slowly but surely going flatline as a form of entertainment. She's very popular because the marketing team (and her?) know what they're doing quite well, and doing it quite well, too. It's a corporation, not art. Young people don't care about any of that, as always...

Even I sometimes get her videos suggested on Youtube, even though I've never watched any of her videos, and I'm leaning anti-woke. It's obvious there's something murky going on, and why she's so popular. In everything, but especially music, the exposure is the most important thing which will make you become popular and sell a lot. Hear the catchy tune 1 time too much and you will be hooked. See the titties hopping and you will be hooked. Especially when young and full of raging hormones.

 

One other thing I find admirable with Swift : she's never relied upon controversy to boost her fame.

When that idiot Kanye took a giant pile of dump on her moment, she could've surfed on the controversy wave for a looong time, but she chose to be mature about it. Years later Kanye kept on insulting her, and she kept her cool. When she addressed the "feud" in a song of hers, it wasn't insulting.

She never used sex for controversy. She's the anti-Madonna in that regard. Sexuality isn't completely absent from her work, especially now that she's a 34 year old woman, but she didn't need it to get where she is today.

Most above all, she somehow managed to do something very few stars have ever achieved : she is a good role model for young girls. Her message is positive, she is completely aware of the power she has, and the responsibility it brings, and she's using it for good.

I'll say it again : I can't even name her songs. But I've occasionally studied the artist, and she has my utmost respect in many ways.

 

I like her record Lover. It is very well done.

 

uses same chords on 17 songs*

 

Taylor Swift is the sister of Tyler Slow.

All the personal stuff that came out aside, purely at a musical level, that's an insult to Jackson's music even though Pop. She's closer to a B grade version of Britney spears who was the B team to start with. Even closer to Bieber for nausea value. I agree with you on her attitude. for a Pop star, it is exemplary.

 

The puppet of Jack Antonoff.

(BTW good for him if he's picking up some dough along the way. Dream job really!)

 

When you add her:
Age, cats, children and ex boyfriends.

Age - 34
Cats - 3
Children - zero = 4
Ex boyfriends - 14

You will get:
34 3 = 34 + 3 = 37
4 14 = 4 + 14 = 18

37 x 18 = 666

SATAN NUMBER!!!

TAYLOR SWIFT IS A DEVIL!!!
TOLD YA!!!

 

It's a good thing I specifically mentioned like 258 times that I was talking purely from a fame perspective, not a musical one