Taylor Swift’s Op-Ed in the Wall St. Journal (A Rebuttal)
On Monday (7-7), Taylor Swift did something somewhat unusual from the music space—she posted an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal. Though not unheard of, for a pop star, especially one who is only 24-years-old, to enter the fray of intellectual discourse in this manner is a little unexpected, though it goes along with her classy approach to life in general lately (see pics of her moderately-cut bathing suit from the 4th of July weekend). And despite music listeners’ predisposition to think any and all pop stars are nothing more than bubblegum twirlers, you would be a fool to think that Taylor Swift is anything but intellectual inside to some extent. Beyond her musical success, she a savvy businesswoman who calls many of her own shots, and has created arguably the most successful music franchise of this generation.
Taylor Swift’s piece is very well-written, inviting and colloquial, but also thoughtful and challenging where it needs to be. She raises some very important points about music, and does so in a persuasive manner. And before getting too deep into the body of what she says, it’s interesting to find Swift once again referencing either her fear or just her self-awareness that she is aging as an artist. “I’ll just be sitting back and growing old, watching all of this happen or not happen,” she says at the end of the piece. 24-years-old may not seem aged to most who would read the Wall Street Journal, but in the pop world, it is long in the tooth, especially the pop world today. Taylor has also referenced her age recently in the context of hoping to realize when it’s right to hang it up, while always wanting to remain a songwriter. Maybe Swift hears her biological clock ticking, and her age references are just as much about wanting different things out of life now that she has reached the pinnacle, as it is about growing fear of becoming irrelevant in the music marketplace. But this bit of introspection once again speaks to more of a heady disposition than some of Swift’s most popular songs might allude to.
Also, it is refreshing to see an artist attempt to take some leadership in music, especially in this approach. The problem with music in general is the current regime of political correctness has made machines out of our music stars, unwilling to go out on limbs, worried it will result in some sort of public backlash or misunderstanding.
But all of that aside ladies and gentlemen, what is going on here is marketing. It beings with marketing, and ends with marketing. It doesn’t mean that Taylor Swift doesn’t make some salient points, or mean what she says, and that those points aren’t important. But the bottom dollar is what is driving the sentiments in this piece.
What we are seeing here with this op-ed, and the bevy of Taylor Swift bathing suit pics that surfaced over the 4th of July weekend, is the opening salvo in Taylor Swift’s next album release cycle. Swift is getting ready to release her 5th studio album, and she will likely make an announcement about it either later in July or possibly in August about a release date likely in October or November. What has been happening over the last few months, including her no show at the CMT Awards, is the minimal exposure a big-time star like Swift hopes to attain right before re-emerging and creating anticipation about a new project. In fact Taylor Swift spoke about this very thing when she released the song “Sweeter Than Fiction” as part of a movie soundtrack. “I had to go around and ask people, ‘Can I please, please put something out?’ even though we’re supposed to be going quiet,” she said in the Fall of 2013. Swift has been purposely absent from radio for a while, and it is ripe for a new, blockbuster single.
There are two principal points that Taylor Swift conveys in her op-ed 1) Buy my music. 2) Don’t bitch because my music isn’t country.
Of course, she says it more eloquently, and embellishes it with personal stories that help endear these ideas to the reader. But break it down, and that’s what is conveyed. Why? Because like with Swift’s concern about growing older, Taylor is approaching this album release from a position of fear. She’s afraid not enough people are going to buy it, and that everyone will criticize it because it’s not country. So she releases an op-ed that challenges both of these things before they even transpire. She’s trying to be ahead of the game, and this is smart. But the motivations may be a little misguided.
Her first point is about cherishing the music experience and asking people to still purchase music and not just stream it—a very relevant issue for Swift since her label Big Machine does not release albums to Spotify or other streamers until months after the release. Overall, it is hard to disagree with anything she says.
Music is art, and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for. It’s my opinion that music should not be free, and my prediction is that individual artists and their labels will someday decide what an album’s price point is. I hope they don’t underestimate themselves or undervalue their art.
Yes, yes, and yes! It’s great to see these points made, and by someone with the bullhorn the size of Taylor Swift’s. But then she seems to go on to understand the realities of album purchasing, and then indirectly lobby for her album to be one of the few you should make a point to purchase.
In mentioning album sales, I’d like to point out that people are still buying albums, but now they’re buying just a few of them. They are buying only the ones that hit them like an arrow through the heart or have made them feel strong or allowed them to feel like they really aren’t alone in feeling so alone. It isn’t as easy today as it was 20 years ago to have a multiplatinum-selling album, and as artists, that should challenge and motivate us.
There are always going to be those artists who break through on an emotional level and end up in people’s lives forever.
Taylor wants the reader to be one of those life-long fans who buys any album an artist puts out. Swift’s next release may be for all intents and purposes her last blockbuster release. If not because of her age—which she has already confided in us she sees as a concern—then because in 2 1/2 years from now, the likelihood anybody will be buying anyone’s albums is greatly diminished in the face of streaming. Swift knows this might be her last big shot, and she may be sitting on one of the most costly albums to make in the history of music, and one of the last great blockbuster albums released and accepted in physical form.
The second major point is about genre.
Another theme I see fading into the gray is genre distinction. These days, nothing great you hear on the radio seems to come from just one musical influence. The wild, unpredictable fun in making music today is that anything goes. Pop sounds like hip hop; country sounds like rock; rock sounds like soul; and folk sounds like country and to me, that’s incredible progress. I want to make music that reflects all of my influences, and I think that in the coming decades the idea of genres will become less of a career-defining path and more of an organizational tool.
This moment in music is so exciting because the creative avenues an artist can explore are limitless. In this moment in music, stepping out of your comfort zone is rewarded, and sonic evolution is not only accepted”¦it is celebrated. The only real risk is being too afraid to take a risk at all.
First off, there no disagreement here in Ms. Swift’s assessment that all popular music now sounds the same, regardless of genre, and that this trend continues to progress. The mono-genre is here, and all that is left at this point in popular music is some clean up duty to make sure the mono-genre is completely secured. But some of the points Swift makes while while spelling out what is happening with popular music are misguided, and in a few instances, downright insulting to many worthy musicians.
“These days, nothing great you hear on the radio seems to come from just one musical influence.”
So wait a second, nothing that draws influence from just one genre is “great”? Nothing? NOTHING? No country, no hip-hop, no jazz, pop, classical, R&B, rock, or EDM? NOTHING? This statement by Swift is just as much presumptive as it is insulting to the many artists working within specified genres who are making great music, some which remains very successful on the radio.
There’s no reason to rehash the tired arguments about what is country and what isn’t, and luckily Taylor Swift did not give the stereotypical example that we’ve heard from artists such as Blake Shelton and Eric Church that so-called “traditionalists” only want to have country sound like Hank Williams and Waylon Jennings over and over.
But the notion that somehow genres limit creativity, and working without genres immediately implies creativity, is ridiculous and misguided, and is insulting to many creative and hard-working artists. Genre is simply a music term for artistic medium. Just because a sculptor doesn’t want to use the aid of digital imaging to map out his vision in clay, does that somehow make them less creative because they refuse help from a multimedia format? Or does that make the artist more creative because they are able to work within a narrowed medium and still create something artistic and impactful to an audience?
It is the same for musical genres. As the proprietor of a website that has a genre name right there in the title, I have gone out of my way to say that genres can, and in some instances, should be blended, if that is what leads to better art. But sometimes adhering to genres makes art that’s even better because it has a familiarity or a lineage behind it. Just because something is different, doesn’t make it good, and genres creates the strong foundation from which they can be blended so that creativity can flourish. If you start with only blended art though, your palette is severely limited. In other words, scramble eggs all you want. Just understand, an egg can’t be unscrambled. And what is wrong with celebrating diversity in music, in enjoying the differences between influences instead of trying to resolve them?
Furthermore, Taylor Swift has been bestowed riches of the world very few living people on the earth can even imagine, and it has been done heretofore though the institution of country music—a defined and rigid genre. It was country radio, the CMA, which is an organization made up of radio broadcasters and labels, that have endowed Swift with many of her awards, and much of her success. Taylor Swift owes country music a historic debt of gratitude, and not to say that she hasn’t attempted to pay it back with huge endowments to the Country Music Hall of Fame and other institutions. But just because Taylor wants to leave country music, doesn’t mean she has to leave with a torch in her hand, burning the institution behind her, and genres in general as she turns her back on what made her one of the riches entertainers in the world.
Taylor Swift is leaving country with her next album, and we already know that. The only question left isif country will let her. And hey, let her go, it’s fine. The last half-decade of conflict and arguments over whether Taylor Swift is country or not have been tiresome. And by her being honest about her genre choices, it gives her music a strength it has not had before when she was trying to pass off pop for country. But for the love of God, let us enjoy our genres and country music in peace, without having our creativity or level of open-mindedness incessantly questioned. There’s a happy medium here, where genre-based music and mixed genre music can co-habitate peacefully.
But as a genre or as fans, country music shouldn’t be so quick to applaud Taylor Swift leaving. Because along with her goes one of the format’s commercial powerhouses, and most engaging songwriters. Was she ever country? Of course not. But genre’s aside, Taylor Swift was better than many of her country music alternatives and contemporaries. Truth be known, Taylor is smart to get out of country while the getting’s good.
But remember Taylor Swift, country music supported you, and loved you even when you didn’t belong. And even though genres may no longer belong in the popular music world, that doesn’t mean they don’t deserve love for endowing you and other musical performers with worlds full of opportunity.
July 7, 2014 @ 7:30 pm
Absolutely agree, great rebuttal. The sub mono genre, so to speak, has already been happening for a few years now under the umbrella of “Americana.” Good music is good, though most pop music these days is so mechanically engineered it’s difficult to find any of it endearing. I’ll take a songwriter with no illusions any day, at least she’s honest.
July 7, 2014 @ 7:37 pm
While I appreciated your apology piece about Taylor a couple years ago–especially after going after her facial features and predicting her deteriorating into cocaine abuse–I feel like there’s still some latent bitterness seeping through here, predictably so.
Anyway, while I agree that the “nothing great” point was a claim of absolutism, she probably meant popular, and yes, the distinction between the two is a very important one to make. She should have said “popular” because I’ve always been of the opinion that quality is 100% subjective, precisely because of the heart-and-soul-connection claim she made in that piece. THAT claim was, as I see it, a big middle finger to those who have a history of treating her success and that of others as a moral issue.
You seem to imply that the ENTIRE piece was without nuance, or at least, more of it than I think was. She did not say that “working without genres immediately implies creativity.” What I think she was rallying against was the gang mentality that genres often cultivate. It’s the kind of mentality that allows someone to characterize an artist as a toy to be played with or tossed aside by a genre. Regardless I think saying she’s “leaving country” with her NEXT album is generous, especially coming from you, Triggerman.
At the end of the day, since you make a shameless confession of cynicism at the start of this rebuttal–a rebuttal to an article that started with a shameless confession of enthusiastic optimism–none of this really matters, because you already decided to raise an eyebrow at whatever she said. I’m on the optimism side–not just about the future of the industry. I think that she’s not “getting out while the getting’s good,” but rather is experimenting like all the best artists do. She didn’t wake up one morning and decide to be a pop star. It’s the Britneys of the world whose puppeteers make those decisions. Isn’t it possible that, like she always has, Taylor’s writing these songs honestly, producing them in such a way that they sound like the experience they’re based on, and letting iTune techies and radio DJs decide to put her songs in whatever box they want, because she doesn’t really care about that part?
July 7, 2014 @ 8:48 pm
Ethan,
I’m not sure that I am as cynical about Taylor Swift specifically as I am about entertainers taking to publications in general to post op-eds that portray themselves as simply making discussion when it’s pretty clear there’s an underlying agenda and purpose. If I had got the sense at any point that Taylor was concerned about music in general, and not just her music specifically, maybe I would have given her some more points for being nuanced. Instead it just made me more suspicious.
As for some of my rebuttals on the importance of genres, I apologize if it came across that I was putting words in her mouth. I may have piggy backed off of her words to make some more global points about genres, and maybe I slightly over-reacted to her statement about “nothing” being good from a single influence. But being the biggest star in the planet, I think that was a dangerous statement.
Make no mistake, if you like a genre of music, no matter what that genre is, right now you are under attack. You’re being labeled as closed-minded, and against creativity. This is dangerous and misguided rhetoric, and in my opinion, it needs to be challenged sternly.
In the end, I still have tremendous respect for Taylor Swift. This next album is going to be very interesting.
July 7, 2014 @ 9:08 pm
Trigger,
Thanks for the swiftness (sorry–full disclosure–I’m a bit of a bratty twenty something) and effort of your response. I appreciate your distinction between cynicism about Taylor and cynicism about any artist doing what she’s doing. I certainly don’t share it, but I agree that that’s an important distinction to make.
I’ll admit that while people like me will almost end up on the opposite side of arguments with cynics. Chalk it up to my youthful naiveté if you will, but there you have it. Just fyi, even though I’m a “Millennial,” I was raised on everything: My mother leaned toward vocal artists like Whitney Houston, Barbra Streisand, and Barry Manilow, while my dad bred me to be a classic rock fan, having been a fan of The Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, Eric Clapton, The Doors, and the Rolling Stones his whole life. Where my parents musically met in the middle was the decade they spent apart before they met: the 70s; Stevie Wonder, Simon & Garfunkel, Billy Joel, Joni Mitchell, etc. I was as obsessed with tween pop as any tween at the time (well, maybe a little more; I was shamelessly flamboyant), but I found country through the Dixie Chicks, which led me to Loretta Lynn, Dolly Parton, Johnny Cash, and eventually Miranda Lambert, Keith Urban and Taylor (the latter whom I stuck with because, as you’ve pointed out, she’s “real”.) I’d also like to point out the one “tween pop” act of my youth I still listen to is Hanson, because they’re musicians and storytellers, and it’s really storytelling that I admire the most in an artist. It’s all I really care about (well, that, and a great fiddle solo. That stuff is to my ears what French cuisine is to a foodie.)
I guess my ultimate point is that because of my diverse exposure, I wouldn’t call myself a fan of any particular genre, which is why Taylor’s article appealed to me so much. And so while I understand the difference between country decades ago and country now, and while I read plenty of music criticism (including yours) I can’t bring myself to feel like I’m “under attack.” Taylor’s article certainly didn’t feel that way to me–quite the contrary. If anything, the neon warning you wave implying that I should is what makes me feel like I missed some memo about last week’s music vigilante meeting, and should flip through radio stations and scroll through iTunes as if I were a minuteman on patrol, for want of a better analogy. I admire the resilience and commitment of the vigilantes–the warriors–but I guess I’m not cut out for it. Ironically, given how much I love older country music and am an aspiring singer-songwriter who’s gay, I should probably find bro-country even more threatening than most. Maybe I’ll get there some day. 😉
Sorry for my logorrheic post. I just care a lot. I’m sure you understand. And I agree, we should expect the next album to surprise us.
July 7, 2014 @ 11:27 pm
I think there is a concerted effort out there beyond this op-ed to discredit not only genres, but the people who claim genres are important, and glorify people who defy them. Taylor may have dotted her ‘I”s with hearts and said it with positivity and love for all living things, but I still feel like ideals that I find important to keeping music healthy and diverse are being discredited. And I think it’s also pretty clear why.
July 7, 2014 @ 7:44 pm
I also want to point out that I don’t think she implied–or stated outright–that genres “don”™t deserve love for endowing [her] and other musical performers with worlds full of opportunity.” In what way is she denying them love or betraying them? The only evidence anyone else who’s made that claim points to is the very genre-fucking aspect of her music that you condone here.
One more note about your cynicism: it’s most blatant in the implication that even her choice of bathing suit is a publicity stunt, and it colors the whole piece, given how dedicated you are to substantive analysis.
July 7, 2014 @ 8:17 pm
You obviously haven’t taken a marketing class.
If you’re still in high school, my apologies.
July 7, 2014 @ 8:22 pm
Right, because anyone who’s ever taken a marketing class knows with absolute certainty the motivations behind a girl’s vacation photos.
FYI, while closely following a pop star’s social media life is nothing to brag about, something you “obviously” haven’t done is peruse through her past posts. She broadcast photos of her last 4th of July party with friends in 2013, too, and there was no big album cycle ‘a coming. So you can get down off your high horse and join the rest of us on solid ground. I’m a college graduate, thanks.
July 7, 2014 @ 8:51 pm
Let’s not make too much of my (mention in parentheses) of her bathing suit photos. All that I meant was to points out there has been an effort to engage the media and the public recently, with this op-ed being the biggest. There’s nothing about her posting 4th of July pics that is inherently wrong or out of the ordinary, I was just proving she’s not trying to be out of the spotlight anymore.
July 7, 2014 @ 9:10 pm
Fair enough, though I don’t imagine she could escape the spotlight right now without enormous effort.
July 8, 2014 @ 4:53 am
Trigger. Just a post to rebut some of your points in your rebuttal. The CMT no-show was nothing to do with Taylor seeking to minimise her exposure due to album release schedules. Taylor simply was unable to attend because she literally had her own concert to perform that very day in Jakarta, Indonesia. This was part of the Asian Leg of her Red Tour.
Also her posting July 4 pics is simply something she does on July 4 like many Americans. Last year she also hosted a July 4 weekend party, which included many of her dancers/friends. She and they posted pics from the party. The fact she did the same this year is nothing to do with album releases schedules, it is just a consequence of Taylor having an annual July 4 party in her Rhode Island summer house. The fact that her party this year included many people who were also famous such as Emma Stone, Jaime King, Lena Dunham is purely a consequence of Taylor being friends with other famous people.
If these people want to subsequently tweet pics from the party to their own fans/twitter/instagram followers that is not Taylor’s doing. These people are not marketing Taylor for her coming album release, they are marketing themselves.
The WSJ asking Taylor to give an opinion about sales in the music industry is a no-brainer considering that she has sold more albums in America than anyone else since she emerged in 2006. She knows how to shift albums, so why not ask her about the business of it? Again the timing of this WSJ article is not down to Taylor and her forthcoming album release, it is down to the WSJ celebrating it’s 125th anniversary this week. The article by Taylor is only one of several written by various well-known leaders of their respective industries discussing the future of their various industries.
It’s timing is mere coincidence, there is no master-plan where Taylor created WSJ 125 years ago or created the July 4 Holiday and social media in order to promote her 5th album.
July 8, 2014 @ 11:02 am
Revel,
Like I said above, nobody is floating conspiracy theories here. It was simply a passing point to paint a broader picture that Taylor Swift is starting her album cycle here to give context to her op-ed, and a point I used Taylor’s own words to prove. Artists are smart to make sure there is some downtime for them in the public eye so that people don’t become tired of them, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with that. At the same time, it’s fair to call it a marketing strategy because that’s what it is.
And I know that some of the pics came from people at a party, but TRUST ME, nothing gets posted online from a Taylor Swift private party without permission.
Did the Wall St. Journal ask for the piece, or did Taylor voluntarily submit it? I’m seriously asking, because I have not seen anywhere that it was done on request. This would be an interesting piece of info about it.
July 7, 2014 @ 8:06 pm
Exceptional rebuttal, Trig.
July 7, 2014 @ 9:05 pm
Leaving country? When was she ever country?
July 7, 2014 @ 9:12 pm
Another rebuttal from Vox.
http://www.vox.com/2014/7/7/5878603/taylor-swift-doesnt-understand-supply-and-demand
July 7, 2014 @ 9:27 pm
What she said could be seen as an attack on genres (and I agree with most of you said about the importance of genres), but it’s that part below that makes me think that she meant something else.
“This moment in music is so exciting because the creative avenues an artist can explore are limitless. In this moment in music, stepping out of your comfort zone is rewarded, and sonic evolution is not only accepted”¦it is celebrated. The only real risk is being too afraid to take a risk at all”
That part makes me think that she’s attacking the idea of artists being classified by genres and being seen as sell-outs if they decide to try new genres of music or blend genres (“because the creative avenues an artist can explore are limitless”) more than she is attacking genres themselves. I think her problem is not people/the industry calling her country (i.e. stating that her/her music belongs to a certain genre), but attacking her for experimenting with new sounds and trying other genres (i.e. limiting her to one genre and calling her a sell-out if tries something else).
July 7, 2014 @ 9:34 pm
I think Taylor Swift should be free do make whatever kind of music she wants, but she’s still responsible for sending 100% non-country songs to country radio, especially with the ‘Red’ album.
July 7, 2014 @ 9:45 pm
There’s nothing in my comment that implied that that was not the case. Yeah, I know she sent We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together to country radio (Begin Again and Red at least had some country influences), which is clearly a pop song, but I was not talking about that. I was discussing Trigger’s opinion that she was attacking genres in her op-ed because I think she’s attacking the idea of being limited to a certain genre and not being allowed to experiment with a new sound without getting called a sell-out more than she’s attacking the existence of genres.
July 7, 2014 @ 11:35 pm
As I have said about Taylor Swift from the beginning, I would respect her music a lot more if she would just call it pop. And now it looks like she’s trying to, but sort of in a weird way where she’s leading you along on some string of a intellectual explanation instead of just saying, “I’m pop. I mix a bunch of stuff together. You don’t like it, don’t listen.”
As Vox pointed out in their rebuttal that I posted a link to above, what Taylor Swift fails to understand is that she is the biggest star in all of music right now, and so the rules are going to apply to her completely differently. She has a right to demand from her fans that they buy physical copies of their albums, because she’s Taylor Swift and they’ll listen. But that is only a solution for Taylor Swift, not for 99.9% of music, which is why I think this piece had a self-centered agenda. Most bands can’t demand anything from anyone. They are at the mercy of everything. They can’t even get their fans to read their Facebook posts.
July 8, 2014 @ 12:06 am
I found that Vox piece pretty presumptuous. Her claim of decline in quality and “heart-and-soul fan connection” = decline in sales doesn’t negate Vox’s statistical one of decline in scarcity = decline in sales. It also is not confirmation that she’s blind to that claim. He was pretty smug in calling his article a “takedown” of Taylor on Twitter, as if it’s a food fight or high school debate club and he caught her with fake nerd glasses. Does he really believe she’s not smart enough to see the relationship between endless supply and little demand, simply because she notes a different relationship that exists alongside it?
Of course quality is subjective, but Patel himself said that “You can’t sell a handful of singles and some okayish filler for $10 or $15 or $25.” The keyword there is OKAYISH, He makes this statement in a paragraph meant to rebut her “bet that music consumers will reward quality.” He’s making her point for her without even realizing it.
Also, Patel claims “the idea of rarity simply doesn’t exist in the digital marketplace,” yet again creating a straw girl by implying that Taylor was referring to music itself when she used the word “rarity,” when he already acknowledged that she was referring to a certain kind of music with a certain kind of quality.
Which came first: did consumers “kill the album” (whatever that really means) all on their own, or did artists get lazy and start clogging up albums with so much filler that consumers decided not to waste their money? I think bro-country is the perfect example of labels and artists pandering to the lowest common denominator instead of doing what Taylor’s calling on them to do–what they should do–raising it. And yes, as you have wisely pointed out on SCM, bro-country is a symptom, but none of the causes you mentioned in that piece had to do with YouTube or piracy. It’s about greed, laziness, sexism, lack of education, etc.
Finally, as for the idea that she’s blind to her own unique position: that’s just preposterous. I replied to Patel on Twitter about all this and he responded with that chart of declining album sales and said “Figure out how to fix this and you’ll be a billionaire.” Well, first of all, Taylor’s halfway there but she can’t come up with the silver bullet for the “problem of infinite supply,” all o her own. Neither can Patel, but he is essentially attacking her for not being a genius and trying to characterize that as naive. I disagree….clearly.
July 8, 2014 @ 12:25 am
I’m going to bed after this, I promise. My thoughts are just not stopping right now:
Anyway, my ultimate point about Patel vs. Swift is that they”™re both right, and the rants you”™ve made about checklist country prove her right. To me, her claims in the op-ed are vindications of yours. The problem with Patel is he”™s such a hopped up hammer, ready to strike at any nail that doesn”™t say what he wants her to say (in this case, the impact of the internet. Neglecting to acknowledge it is not the same as disputing it). I actually did buy Cruise (the non-Nelly version), I guess because I”™m young and empty-headed or some such thing. But of course I didn”™t buy the album it was off of (whatever it was called). That same year, I bought 100 Proof, because the album had substance. Of course Kellie Pickler can”™t afford to put on a show with surprise guest stars every night like Taylor can. She doesn”™t have to, at least not to get respect from me or you, Trigger.
Here”™s another big hole in his logic: If endless proliferation of product is what caused album sales to “stop, full stop,” as Patel put it to me on Twitter, then why didn”™t singles sales decline at the same time and at the same rate? People buy both with the same money, don”™t they? Why is the album dead but singles aren”™t, if it”™s about scarcity, or lack thereof? Because, as Taylor pointed out, “people are buying only the albums that hit them like an arrow through the heart or have made them feel strong or allowed them to feel like they really aren’t alone in feeling so alone.” Adele didn”™t break records with her record earlier this decade because she was doing anything particularly innovative musically, did she? No. It was because she “broke through on an emotional level.” I”™ll be seeing her on tour for that reason, the same basic reason I go to see Taylor. On THAT level, their shows are exactly the same.
July 8, 2014 @ 11:08 am
Ethan,
I agree with you to some extent about the Patel piece. I’m not necessarily defending it, I just thought he made a good point that Taylor Swift doesn’t really have the proper perspective to speak on certain matters like album sales because of who she is. But overall it is a hatchet piece, and Taylor Swift set herself up as an easy target.
This is the thing: people like Patel and I, we do this stuff for a living (or at least Patel does. I do it full-time but don’t get paid, whatever that is). Taylor Swift is always going to get 1 up’ed in situations like this because she’s out of her element, just like if you put me on stage and asked me to memorize a choreographed dance routine. That is why I made sure to go out of my way to give her kudos for trying, and doing a fairly good job conveying her points. I may disagree with those points, but that’s my job.
July 8, 2014 @ 2:59 pm
I get where you’re coming from with your point about areas of expertise, I just don’t agree that it’s such a hard-and-fast “always” rule. I mean, many would argue that Taylor’s out of her element here AND on stage (while I’d disagree, obviously, that’s another instance of subjectivity). But I appreciate your commitment to the job and field (given that you’re not in it for dough) and I look forward to your thoughts on album five.
July 8, 2014 @ 6:56 am
‘I think bro-country is the perfect example of labels and artists pandering to the lowest common denominator instead of doing what Taylor”™s calling on them to do”“what they should do”“raising it.’
‘We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together ‘ ? C’mon , Ethan . THIS is surely the best example ever of what you’ve stated above . I’ve never taken TS seriously as a writer OR a ‘vocalist’ and least of all as an ‘entertainer’ ….but I know that her legions of young female fans have . She’s their voice . Taylor has knowingly pandered to her market since day 1…and with WANEGBT she certainly targeted the lowest common denominator . Quite successfully
I’ve always maintained that in a culture that panders to the lowest common denominator with TV shows like Kardashians and stars like Paris HIlton , talent shows that feature ‘artists’ singing COVER songs ( cover songs ?? ),a culture which peddles hypocritical viewpoints on sex to a younger and younger market , etc, we shouldn’t be surprised in the least that TS is the most successful ‘artist’ of the time . The ART is in the MARKETING of all of this crap …there’s certainly no art in the crap itself .
July 8, 2014 @ 8:34 am
I guess I’l always be at an impasse with some folks on here when it comes to tastebuds, but l’ll never understand people who raise debates about quality to levels of such piety. WANEGBT may be vapid, but you can’t deny its authenticity, unless you’re so cynical as to believe that every “story of how a song was written” she’s ever told is a manufactured one. You also can’t deny its honesty if you admit its resonance with an audience just because that audience isn’t YOU. There’s a reason you used We Are Never as an example: because it’s the only one you can realistically use when trying to compare her to the empty-calories of those faux Outlaws. It’s no contest, and even if it were, as Triggerman has stated, it’s not about the death of scarcity; it’s about human emotions and attitudes–that was my main point.
Sorry, but I agree with Taylor: music is art by definition. You can’t just decide that it isn’t. Whether or not it’s good art is where we as individuals come in.
July 8, 2014 @ 12:27 pm
WANEGBT was just one song from an album with 16 songs. Using one song to define her as an artist, when she has released dozens of songs over the last 8 years, is rather ridiculous.
July 8, 2014 @ 5:43 pm
‘WANEGBT may be vapid, but you can”™t deny its authenticity,…’
Ethan ….my 6 year old brings home a drawing he made at school . I would never deny its authenticity and I would adore it because MY 6 year old made it from his heart and his mind and was proud enough of it to bring it home to show me . By definition , it is art . But next to myself and perhaps his gramma , it may only elicit a serious emotional response from another 6 year old . I can think of many, many other artists whose work I’d find more emotionally charged and rewarding to consider, based on artistic merit, their observations and their grasp of the concepts at their disposal when it comes to craft .
July 8, 2014 @ 10:00 pm
Would you consider this song as vapid as well?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMZl50gQTuI
Hint: it’s from the same album as WANEGBT.
July 8, 2014 @ 12:19 am
The problem with multi-genre music isn’t that it exists. It’s that it’s strangling the life out of more traditional music like some mutant kudzu. I’ve seen so many quotes from country singers and songwriters saying their songs are considered too “traditional” to be played on radio now. That’s not a mix; that’s not progress.
When I turn on country radio, I want to hear country music. That’s kinda how it works. The occasional pop or rock influenced song is fine. Just keep the traditional going too.
I respect that Taylor doesn’t want to be chained to one genre forever. She has the right as an artist to do what she wants creatively. If she makes a good pop record I’ll buy it, though I was very unimpressed with We Are Never and Trouble because they had that processed sound I LOATHE. Do they even produce “pop” that doesn’t sound like musical spam anymore? Anyway, I don’t want to criticize an artist for making the music they want. The criticism belongs with radio’s powers that be for putting music that has NO elements of country on country radio. I mean, you wouldn’t play polka on a hip hop station. People would complain.
July 13, 2014 @ 11:46 am
Exactly! It’s of no importance to me whether Swift or any other artist is “really country”. I just don’t see any reason that people like me who like traditional country music have to be converted to the One True Faith known as Pop. As Trigger said,
“But for the love of God, let us enjoy our genres and country music in peace, without having our creativity or level of open-mindedness incessantly questioned.”
July 8, 2014 @ 6:40 am
Nice article. Taylor Swift will be leaving country this year and thus, no country music for her fifth album this year. Taylor Swift will be tackling new genres and she will play all her country music like Tim McGraw on pop stations this year. Let’s hope it’s gonna happen this year.
July 8, 2014 @ 7:31 am
Taylor Swift has my respect as a songwriter and performer and business person. As far as liking her music I do not, never have. However, sadly we find ourselves at a time in place in American popular culture were genere’s mean very little. There are smaller groups of purists that stand firm for the purity of their preferred genere.Trig, you and this forum are fine examples of that. I thank you for your hard work. I am begening to wonder if the “monogenere” is so firmly in place there is no turning back at a large comercial level and that grass roots level support, for the good stuff ,like a Sturghill Simpson, is all that remains. The good news is with blogs, social media, the net allowing for easier access to alternatives than ever before perhaps, guys like Sturghill and so many others can have sustainable careers in spite of the “monogenere” and all of it’s downside.The key is, pay for artists music and go to live shows and buy merch. Bring your friends and family with you ! Word of mouth is still the best marketing there is.
July 8, 2014 @ 10:31 am
I agree on that one, down with mainstreams and cultures. Mainstreams and cultures are ruining appeal. Appeals going by popularity/internet/millennials is still the best. I’m sick of popular American culture. Popular American culture is ruining the USA. Bring back evolve and things stay like that the whole time. Taylor Swift is definitely my respect when it comes to the marketing. I hate changes/repeats/money. Changes/repeats/money is ruining the USA. The USA needs to be a great country, not acting like a money slave and use Canada on USA releases. I mean, USA and Canada are different countries and yet they’re both copying each other’s marketing. It’s getting annoying. USA and Canada needs to marketing on their own (with a few exceptions like movies and video games). USA trade cultures with other country needs to go by different countries in general like Japan. That’s why all countries needs to share trades with each other despite USA and Canada trade is the largest 20 countries trades. That’s why millennials needs to connect the world and franchises together and Taylor Swift happens to be a millennial too. Millennials ftw
July 8, 2014 @ 8:09 am
***NOTE: A comment left by “Clint” has been removed for violating the comment rules, as were any responses.
As you were.
July 8, 2014 @ 8:17 am
Someone with a Coke/Cover Girl endorsement deal commenting on the financial ramifications of music consumerism is kind of like a billionaire talking about the ramifications of unemployment.
Most musicians are sacrificing other revenue streams in the name of making music, not gaining them.
July 8, 2014 @ 11:10 am
Yes, perspective is what really makes Taylor Swift a bad spokesperson on these matters, though I have to say her sentence on music having value and needing to be paid for was on point.
July 8, 2014 @ 11:58 am
I wasn’t sure Trigger how this was going to read, but am impressed. I’m probably of the smaller camp that thinks she’s a bad ass and that the demi god (your words) Borchetta is in equal parts shitting his pants and happy for the money that she will make him in her next release.
Both her piece and your piece are brilliant. I do think that we are going mono genre, kinda like when I was a kid and AM radio was the rule of the day. Is it bad? to some people yes, but to quote Eric Church “there is good music and there is bad music at the end of the day it doesn’t really matter what we call it.”
In any event I’m proud of what she’s (Taylor) done and will continue to do ..She’s only 24 mind you i’m sure somewhere down the road she’ll go Joni Mitchell or Carly Simon and we’ll be shocked at that.
July 8, 2014 @ 12:23 pm
I think everyone should read Taylor Swift’s recent op-ed in tandem with the comments another female singer-songwriter recently made to congress on behalf of independent musicians:
” I CAN tell you that I see young musicians give up their dreams Every Single Day because they cannot make a living, they cannot survive doing the thing they most love, the thing they just might be on the planet to do.”
– Rosanne Cash
https://savingcountrymusic.com/independent-music-makes-its-case-to-congress
Now, THAT is the other side of the story. And by the way, I am not putting down Taylor Swift. I thought she made some interesting points and came across as an articulate, smart person. But obviously the “heart and soul” based music economy doesn’t work so well for a lot of other artists.
July 8, 2014 @ 3:21 pm
” I CAN tell you that I see young musicians give up their dreams Every Single Day because they cannot make a living, they cannot survive doing the thing they most love, the thing they just might be on the planet to do.”
This statement basically supports the point that Swift made that music shouldn’t be free and should be paid for, so that artists don’t have to “give up their dreams every single day because they cannot make a living”, as Roseanne said.
July 8, 2014 @ 4:42 pm
Yes, both Cash and Swift agree that music shouldn’t be free, but where they diverge is in offering solutions.
My intention was to complement Swift’s original point about valuing music (which I think most people on this site agree with) with Cash and Darius Van Arman’s testimonies which in my opinion offered more practical solutions to help struggling recording artists.
I thought Taylor Swift’s op-ed was a nice mission statement for Taylor Swift, but she didn’t offer much in the way of practical solutions that would help the vast majority of artists who aren’t in her position.
Not that I have all the answers, either.
July 8, 2014 @ 5:36 pm
Taylor Swift really strikes me here as if she is being used by the industry in order to say that the current blurring of genres is a good thing. It’s absurd why anyone in their right mind would say that.
July 9, 2014 @ 12:53 am
I think she deeply believes that genres are unimportant. To her, lyrics are far more important than sonic style (a viewpoint that I wholeheartedly disagree with, by the way).
July 9, 2014 @ 5:40 am
Taylor Swift’s article does make sense. However, the fact that she is making money is due to her popularity on both country and pop. With her officially reigning as a full-fledged pop artist, she will definitely lose those album sales number she is bragging about and the arena she has sold out. Things will change. She should remain always in the grey area between pop and country. Though to many she is no longer country, but I have to admit, she was responsible for the commercialisation of country music these last few years, and it’s international appeal.
I have to agree this article is simply her way of approval before releasing her new single, in which it will be in the veins of her blockbuster equally disappointing WANEGBT and Trouble. But as a comment before me states, we can’t judge her based on 3 tracks on Red. The best songs on Red was Sad Beautiful Tragic, Begin Again, All Too Well, and pretty sure those are in the veins of her earlier country-filled songs.
All in all, let’s just see how she will prep her 5th album. The producers she is working on. The singles she will release. And whether she can pull all this off. She is getting older, and she must stop writing heartbreak teenage songs and start being an adult. I recommend a 2 years off for Ms Swift to simply focus on herself and how she wants to be perceived as a musician. It’s not about the number of records you sell, its about doing it for nothing (quote from Eric Church). Best of luck!
July 9, 2014 @ 11:19 am
I totally agree about the 3 best songs from “Red”.
However, the argument that she only writes “teenage heartbreak songs” is quite dated. The songs from “Red” in general are definitely more mature than the vast majority of pop music, not to mention today’s mainstream country.
July 9, 2014 @ 10:11 am
Traditional country music ended with the invention of the electric guitar.
There are very few, if any pure genres of music.
Country music artists as well as pop artists have always wanted to cross over to other genres.
Rock and roll was a combination of country, pop, jazz and gospel music. all of which were combinations of various influences.
Blame TV, radio and and the interstate highway system for melding of genres, not artists just trying to make a buck.
And, oh yes, Taylor rocks.
July 9, 2014 @ 10:16 am
Taylor maybe guilty of some of the things you saw, but that doesn’t make her a bad person, just a smart person. That’s why they call it the music(Business)
July 9, 2014 @ 11:06 am
My first question would be: Who *really* wrote the piece Swift put her name on? And what was that person’s agenda? I have nothing other than suspicion, but I have a hard time believing she came up with the concept and wrote the whole thing. She may have added a flourish here and there, but I’m thinking the idea was somebody else’s, somebody who is doing quite well from the music business right now.
The Washington Post points out some fallacies in her arguments:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style-blog/wp/2014/07/08/five-problems-with-taylor-swifts-wall-street-journal-op-ed/
July 9, 2014 @ 11:15 am
Why do you find it so hard to believe that she wrote it. Taylor, if anything, is an accomplished writer: she won a national poetry competition in elementary school, wrote a novel in middle school, and of course we all know about her songwriting.
Also, if you listen to her interviews, you will find her to be very articulate (definitely more so than the vast majority of celebrities).
Finally, the writing style definitely seems authentic.
July 9, 2014 @ 11:27 am
She may well have written it. I just have a hard time believing she did, but I’d be happy to be proven wrong. Again, what was her motivation to pen it in the first place? And there is a lot of difference between writing poetry or a novel in middle school and writing an op-ed piece that has to make it past editors of a major daily newspaper. The latter is an entirely different kind of writing. I know because I did it for 37 years, and was quite good at it.
July 9, 2014 @ 11:40 am
Taylor is quite the analytical thinker, as has been evident for some time from her extended magazine interviews.
I think this article was motivated by three factors, in no particular order:
1) Stirring up interest in her new album
2) Answering her country critics who argue that she is not country or other critics who mock her for writing emotional songs about relationships (Taylor is quite sensitive to criticism, as we know from “Mean”)
3) Giving an insider’s views about the future of the music industry
July 9, 2014 @ 12:19 pm
I can’t even categorize her as “musical” let alone care about her opinion of the “music” business, but her marketing and business acumen must be well honed by now. This new (mature educated adult skill set) marketing scheme will help springboard her into the Adult Pop Music genre with the flourish of the pen……………or keyboard……….
July 9, 2014 @ 11:37 am
I have no doubt Taylor Swift wrote it, but I also have no doubt she consulted others on it, and probably had it run through an army of proofreaders. I think the motivations are simple and I highlighted them above: This is to be ahead of her “not country” critics, and to implored listeners to buy her album.
Thanks for the Washington Post link.
July 13, 2014 @ 2:35 pm
Trigger, I agree with your analysis. The article is serves a marketing purpose.
I would be curious about your thoughts on why she chose the Wall Street Journal as the publication venue. That was somewhat surprising to me, since I don’t think most of her fan base reads the Wall Street Journal.
Do you think this has to do with her father’s Wall Street background, or with a self important perspective where she thinks she’s more important than other entertainment celebrities? It does remind me of her statements about being a role model in the interview on “60 Minutes”, which combined a self-important attitude with a marketing message. Her comments on thinking about a million people when getting dressed seemed much more Madison Avenue than Sunday school or grandpa’s farm, to say the least.
July 13, 2014 @ 4:16 pm
Not in any way disparaging Taylor, but I think she envisions herself as part of the young aristocracy. For example, buying a house in Rhode Island, dating Kennedys, dressing conservatively, etc. I think she felt she was tackling this subject in a heady manner, and wanted it to be somewhere where it would be respected in that approach. You don’t take these types of matters on CMT.com so it can be smattered with Party Down South ads. I think one of the reasons we saw rebuttal from pretty much every other major periodical is because they were mad they didn’t get it.
July 13, 2014 @ 9:02 pm
Trigger, this makes sense. When viewed in this context the shift away from country music also makes sense. I’d guess that some of the cultural elites in the aristocracy thinks country music is redneck and “second class”, while country music fans might find the aristocratic attitude off putting. I’ve definitely found her music and attitude to be quite annoying over the last 2-3 years in particular.
July 13, 2014 @ 8:57 pm
She probably chose the Wall Street Journal because her focus was on the business model of the music industry.
July 9, 2014 @ 10:54 pm
Thanks for the Washington Post link . Excellent article and to the point .
I think TS has the attitude one absolutely must have to stand a chance of succeeding in their chosen field …particularly a young person. That is …a Pollyanna approach to every endeavor . She is the one in a million that its worked for in the music biz but by now most of us are aware of why and it is only partly due to her writing ‘talents’ . SHE IS A SAFE MARKETABLE PACKAGE ….Parents sacrificed financially and otherwise ,she’s had no arrests , no nude pictures of her made public by an ex , she has a Barbie Doll image HIGHLY marketable , as it was , to VERY young girls whose parents were comfortable with these children listening to lyric content which didn’t demean women , or celebrate drug culture…..and NOTHING controversial about her press releases . SAFE SAFE SQUEAKY CLEAN SAFE with model good looks EVERY little girl ( and their mom ) dreams of having . TS is the Doris Day of the music business . And its ALL business with the TS camp , obviously . And it all works . Now if she could just SING on tune .
July 9, 2014 @ 11:59 pm
Two points:
1) Taylor’s appeal extends far beyond little girls, as is evidenced if you watch videos of any of her concerts. The truth is that many females of all ages desire artists who speak to their heart and not just to fleeting sexual feelings. Taylor has been able to fulfill these desires more than any other popular artist today, and this is why she not only has the largest fan base in pop, but also the most durable one (i.e. a fan base that can push first week album sales numbers above 1 million twice in a row and can push her over the top in one fan voted award after another).
2) Taylor’s voice has improved substantially over the years. Her performance at this year Grammys was in a completely different league than the one with Stevie Nicks 4 years ago.
July 9, 2014 @ 6:59 pm
Ha, this guy is a joke. But I mean, anyone can post an article on the internet, so there’s that. He obviously just doesn’t like Taylor Swift, period (which we already know from previous statements he has made). This guy really needs to grow up, and stop trying to argue points that he doesn’t really understand. How can one know anything about an industry that they have no experience with at all?
July 9, 2014 @ 9:24 pm
Trigger has been warm toward Taylor Swift ever since late 2011, when he wrote this article:
https://savingcountrymusic.com/cma-2011-preview-we-were-wrong-about-taylor-swift
July 10, 2014 @ 7:17 am
You’re a good writer, Ethan….with a great vocabulary.
July 10, 2014 @ 8:55 pm
An interesting economic analysis by the Motley Fool:
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/07/10/leave-taylor-alone-why-taylor-swift-albums-sell-we.aspx
Garth seems to be using the same approach.
July 10, 2014 @ 10:53 pm
Thanks for sharing. Good article.
I’m live in the wild, wild west. I went downtown to have a bite and Taylor’s music is playing during the lunch hour. Cowboys are seated everywhere and it’s like we’re living in Stepfordville. We’re all lockstep on the Taylor train and riding her endless wave of success.
Your article hit the mark, she worked for her fan base and they work for her. In the midst of all the salty dogs was this lilting la-la-la and sometimes, I think we’re all going to drink the kool-aid until we drown.
July 13, 2014 @ 4:00 am
Here’s another article about Taylor’s op-ed in the Wall Street Journal…
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101829682