Quote
Kurt

Quote
Tate

I need a song or two to really impress me. Does it exist?

Yes.
I will give you an ALBUM or two...
Listen to Folklore and Evermore. Both releases are astounding.

Needing to go back to Folklore, as I was initially disappointed with it and couldn't get all the accolades heaped at it. Evermore though IS friggin' brilliant. Easily one of my Top 50 by ANYONE. Maybe even Top 40 or 30. Phenomenal.

I am being lured more and more into the Swifty world. I've ordered a large chunk of her catalog from Japan with all the bonus tracks and DVD's. Still missing some, but have the majority of them, and 3 versions of her forthcoming album already on pre-order. That's more for the covers than the content. I like the B&W photos. Actually I have a thing for B&W photography. But she is the only artist whose catalog I have almost exclusively from Japan. The Walmart-exclusive EP and her Christmas album would be the 2 exceptions to that. Everything else is the Japanese exclusive versions. Forthcoming album isn't counted either. Would have preferred waiting to see if a definitive version is released there with all the bonus tracks, though I wouldn't be surprised to see a last minute RSD release added with all the bonus tracks culled onto 1 record.

I will admit that, lyrically, her latter day stuff really amazes me. I don't know too many people using the allusions, allegories, and words that she does in her lyrics. She's come a long, long way, and her maturity is becoming more and more evident.

And visually, many of her videos are also something to watch, and most of those visions are also her own. Really it's rather remarkable.

Evermore is definitely my favorite album of hers, and 1989 is the one that really catapulted her into the Milky Way, but personally I think Red is a stronger album - just by a hair.

I admit I don't really get the Masters dispute and re-recording all of her albums. I get that she owns those versions, but she still doesn't have the originals, and most radio stations only play the known versions; not Taylor's versions, so I'm not sure what she really accomplished there, though some of the new song versions are interesting. I'm surprised no single has been released yet for the new album, less than 2 months away.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2024-02-26 23:19 by VoodooLounge13.

Quote
BowieStone

Quote
georgelicks
Her new album, which comes out on April 19, has already surpassed 600,000 copies in pre-sale, only in the United States, still with 55 days left until the release date and who knows how many new versions with different bonus tracks.

She's touring Australia now playing to packed stadiums night after night, she has 8 albums in the Australian Top 10 albums chart and her entire discography in the Top 20.

A global phenomenon almost never seen before.

Still most people can't name 3 songs.
I'm not dissing her btw, I'm a fan since 'Speak Now'.
But at the height of their careers everybody knew 3 songs of Elvis, The Beatles or Michael Jackson.
I don't think her music reaches the regular music fan.

My wife wanted to go see her movie and I thought "I won't recognize anything." I obviously know who she is but I don't claim to be a "fan". But yknow, I'm a living breathing person that has had the radio on. I knew You Belong With Me, 22, We Are Never Getting Back Together, I Knew You Were Trouble, Blank Space, Shake It Off, Bad Blood. I'm certainly not saying everyone should, but they are songs I do think MOST people can name by her.

As for what people say about her, I would say the number 1 thing is "she writes her own songs." That is literally THE sticking point her fans hammer home, which doesn't exactly mean the same thing as "her songwriting is AMAZING" but it has a similar connotation to it. People like her songwriting, and yes, having seen her show on film she puts on a good show. But ultimately, I did leave with a bigger appreciation of her music. There's a "show", but she's largely singing that whole thing, she does a lot of different styles and stuff from all of her albums, and its a peak into her world. As a nonfan, it was a little long for me, but even with that it was fairly consistent. As a fan, I'm sure its a dream. Like if the Stones did 20 minutes from every one of their albums from Aftermath to Its Only Rock N Roll.

She's in a really interesting place right now. And people may think she's on football too much and everything, but she largely seems like she's handling it as professionally as a 34 year old on top of the world could. Seems like a down to earth nice person, having a meteroic moment right now. She's not blowing it on drugs or strip clubs or anything. As a nonfan that saw her film and enjoyed it, I walked away with an appreciation of these songs that, as a largely classic rock/hard rock fan, I just saw as good interesting songwriting:

-Lover: a great catchy pop single in any age I'd argue.
-Love Story: maybe a bit too girly for some, but I can see why it was one of her first big hits. Sweet song that tells a full story to an earworm melody.
-Champagne Problems: off one of her newer acoustic albums and thought it was very interesting lyrically
-Betty: another newer acoustic song that was really good.
-Style: not typically my thing, but god damn what a hook of a chorus. Not too overhype it in any way, but I think my first thought was "is this really not stolen from something?" It just feels like it should have existed already in some form.

Again, I'm not a big fan of hers nowadays or anything, but looking at the film tracklist those are ones I remember. She has a couple other songs like Pictures To Burn where I get why she connects with people. They're certainly catchy songs. Will she be the next Beatles where we remember the songs in 50 years? I doubt it, but really who's to say. You probably would have said the same about the Beatles in 1968. Some people just last, she might be one of them, but the more I learn about who she is as a person and how she's ran her career, the more I'm impressed and feel she deserves it. No knock to Madonna, but I don't think Taylor is getting any of this through shock value. Madonna is talented, but a lot of it was selling sex. Taylor is hot, no question about it, but the way she seems to promote herself is truly music and her fans first, as well as just being a nice sweet approachable person.

Oh, someone played me the song Getaway Car and that was a great @#$%& song. I learned later apparently its big in her fanbase because there's video of her coming up with the lyrics on the spot but I noticed on first listen "thats a hell of a song she came up with right there."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-02-26 23:13 by RollingFreak.

Quote
VoodooLounge13
I admit I don't really get the Masters dispute and re-recording all of her albums. I get that she owns those versions, but she still doesn't have the originals, and most radio stations only play the known versions; not Taylor's versions, so I'm not sure what she really accomplished there

Thats kinda what I thought but the more I read about it the more I'm impressed by it. As I understand it, it was really just a project for her. Like, she hoped it would catch on, but it was more likely to not than it would. She wanted to re-record them so that she owned those versions so that IF people wanted them, they could get them from her instead of someone else who owns them. I guess she did it at the perfect time, because it took off with her fans and now seemingly if you DON'T use the new version, she doesn't necessarily call you out, but it does seem there's this machine that movie studios and the like don't want to risk that she might. So in essence they've bought into her whole thing and now its become this movement. Which in itself is very cool. Paul McCartney never owned the Beatles stuff, but imagine if he did and he had the personal say of whether these songs could be in this movie? We certainly know with the Stones that the music industry history is FULL of unfair things like this for young artists, so its cool that she's taking it back and owning it. They are hers, she should, the same way the Stones should have owned what Allen Klein ended up getting.

When I thought about listening to her albums I'm like "f this, this'll be like when Ozzy OSbourne rerecorded Blizzard of Ozz. I'm going to the original, not this new update." But over time, I've understood more why she's doing it and while I'm not buying her records, I get why I'd listen to these over the originals. They sound the same and she's doing it on her terms. I thought it was dumb but now I think its really cool that her pet project became this much bigger thing. She wasn't really asking for it to catch on, it just kinda happened, which seems like a nice thing in the industry full of horror stories. And hopefully can change the amount of ownership artists will have of their early career work.

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
VoodooLounge13
I admit I don't really get the Masters dispute and re-recording all of her albums. I get that she owns those versions, but she still doesn't have the originals, and most radio stations only play the known versions; not Taylor's versions, so I'm not sure what she really accomplished there

Thats kinda what I thought but the more I read about it the more I'm impressed by it. As I understand it, it was really just a project for her. Like, she hoped it would catch on, but it was more likely to not than it would. She wanted to re-record them so that she owned those versions so that IF people wanted them, they could get them from her instead of someone else who owns them. I guess she did it at the perfect time, because it took off with her fans and now seemingly if you DON'T use the new version, she doesn't necessarily call you out, but it does seem there's this machine that movie studios and the like don't want to risk that she might. So in essence they've bought into her whole thing and now its become this movement. Which in itself is very cool. Paul McCartney never owned the Beatles stuff, but imagine if he did and he had the personal say of whether these songs could be in this movie? We certainly know with the Stones that the music industry history is FULL of unfair things like this for young artists, so its cool that she's taking it back and owning it. They are hers, she should, the same way the Stones should have owned what Allen Klein ended up getting.

When I thought about listening to her albums I'm like "f this, this'll be like when Ozzy OSbourne rerecorded Blizzard of Ozz. I'm going to the original, not this new update." But over time, I've understood more why she's doing it and while I'm not buying her records, I get why I'd listen to these over the originals. They sound the same and she's doing it on her terms. I thought it was dumb but now I think its really cool that her pet project became this much bigger thing. She wasn't really asking for it to catch on, it just kinda happened, which seems like a nice thing in the industry full of horror stories. And hopefully can change the amount of ownership artists will have of their early career work.

So, this is actually how I came to buy a large chunk of her catalog - because I wanted the original versions before they were gone forever. And if I was going to buy anymore of her albums, I might as well track down the definitive versions!!! It's the original versions of songs I know and was tortured with as a middle school girls' soccer coach years ago, so I wanted those originals, and then from there, I'd move on to the Taylor versions - all of which I was hoping would be more in the vein of Folklore/Evermore, but alas they are not.

Wasn't aware that powers that be are buying into the re-recordings too - so then she has succeeded in basically erasing the past originals. I do hope she can bring light to this horrible standard - The Beatles, The Stones, Billy Joel, Taylor - the industry is full of artists being taken advantage of unfortunately.

Quote
VoodooLounge13

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
VoodooLounge13
I admit I don't really get the Masters dispute and re-recording all of her albums. I get that she owns those versions, but she still doesn't have the originals, and most radio stations only play the known versions; not Taylor's versions, so I'm not sure what she really accomplished there

Thats kinda what I thought but the more I read about it the more I'm impressed by it. As I understand it, it was really just a project for her. Like, she hoped it would catch on, but it was more likely to not than it would. She wanted to re-record them so that she owned those versions so that IF people wanted them, they could get them from her instead of someone else who owns them. I guess she did it at the perfect time, because it took off with her fans and now seemingly if you DON'T use the new version, she doesn't necessarily call you out, but it does seem there's this machine that movie studios and the like don't want to risk that she might. So in essence they've bought into her whole thing and now its become this movement. Which in itself is very cool. Paul McCartney never owned the Beatles stuff, but imagine if he did and he had the personal say of whether these songs could be in this movie? We certainly know with the Stones that the music industry history is FULL of unfair things like this for young artists, so its cool that she's taking it back and owning it. They are hers, she should, the same way the Stones should have owned what Allen Klein ended up getting.

When I thought about listening to her albums I'm like "f this, this'll be like when Ozzy OSbourne rerecorded Blizzard of Ozz. I'm going to the original, not this new update." But over time, I've understood more why she's doing it and while I'm not buying her records, I get why I'd listen to these over the originals. They sound the same and she's doing it on her terms. I thought it was dumb but now I think its really cool that her pet project became this much bigger thing. She wasn't really asking for it to catch on, it just kinda happened, which seems like a nice thing in the industry full of horror stories. And hopefully can change the amount of ownership artists will have of their early career work.

So, this is actually how I came to buy a large chunk of her catalog - because I wanted the original versions before they were gone forever. And if I was going to buy anymore of her albums, I might as well track down the definitive versions!!! It's the original versions of songs I know and was tortured with as a middle school girls' soccer coach years ago, so I wanted those originals, and then from there, I'd move on to the Taylor versions - all of which I was hoping would be more in the vein of Folklore/Evermore, but alas they are not.

Wasn't aware that powers that be are buying into the re-recordings too - so then she has succeeded in basically erasing the past originals. I do hope she can bring light to this horrible standard - The Beatles, The Stones, Billy Joel, Taylor - the industry is full of artists being taken advantage of unfortunately.

I mean yes and no. The new recordings sound exactly like the originals and were made with that in mind. That was their intention and not to change them much. Also the originals are still pretty much available anywhere. Stores and Spotify and YouTube etc. I don't think she's trying to erase anything, she just wants to own the songs she wrote. I really do understand where you're coming from, but its not like she rerecorded them and they're different. They were faithful recreations of her own songs that she owns. I think if you did an A and B comparison you probably wouldn't know the difference, but I'm seriously not judging you if it can sound like I am. I do get it, I just don't think its as extreme as you're making it sound.

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
VoodooLounge13

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
VoodooLounge13
I admit I don't really get the Masters dispute and re-recording all of her albums. I get that she owns those versions, but she still doesn't have the originals, and most radio stations only play the known versions; not Taylor's versions, so I'm not sure what she really accomplished there

Thats kinda what I thought but the more I read about it the more I'm impressed by it. As I understand it, it was really just a project for her. Like, she hoped it would catch on, but it was more likely to not than it would. She wanted to re-record them so that she owned those versions so that IF people wanted them, they could get them from her instead of someone else who owns them. I guess she did it at the perfect time, because it took off with her fans and now seemingly if you DON'T use the new version, she doesn't necessarily call you out, but it does seem there's this machine that movie studios and the like don't want to risk that she might. So in essence they've bought into her whole thing and now its become this movement. Which in itself is very cool. Paul McCartney never owned the Beatles stuff, but imagine if he did and he had the personal say of whether these songs could be in this movie? We certainly know with the Stones that the music industry history is FULL of unfair things like this for young artists, so its cool that she's taking it back and owning it. They are hers, she should, the same way the Stones should have owned what Allen Klein ended up getting.

When I thought about listening to her albums I'm like "f this, this'll be like when Ozzy OSbourne rerecorded Blizzard of Ozz. I'm going to the original, not this new update." But over time, I've understood more why she's doing it and while I'm not buying her records, I get why I'd listen to these over the originals. They sound the same and she's doing it on her terms. I thought it was dumb but now I think its really cool that her pet project became this much bigger thing. She wasn't really asking for it to catch on, it just kinda happened, which seems like a nice thing in the industry full of horror stories. And hopefully can change the amount of ownership artists will have of their early career work.

So, this is actually how I came to buy a large chunk of her catalog - because I wanted the original versions before they were gone forever. And if I was going to buy anymore of her albums, I might as well track down the definitive versions!!! It's the original versions of songs I know and was tortured with as a middle school girls' soccer coach years ago, so I wanted those originals, and then from there, I'd move on to the Taylor versions - all of which I was hoping would be more in the vein of Folklore/Evermore, but alas they are not.

Wasn't aware that powers that be are buying into the re-recordings too - so then she has succeeded in basically erasing the past originals. I do hope she can bring light to this horrible standard - The Beatles, The Stones, Billy Joel, Taylor - the industry is full of artists being taken advantage of unfortunately.

I mean yes and no. The new recordings sound exactly like the originals and were made with that in mind. That was their intention and not to change them much. Also the originals are still pretty much available anywhere. Stores and Spotify and YouTube etc. I don't think she's trying to erase anything, she just wants to own the songs she wrote. I really do understand where you're coming from, but its not like she rerecorded them and they're different. They were faithful recreations of her own songs that she owns. I think if you did an A and B comparison you probably wouldn't know the difference, but I'm seriously not judging you if it can sound like I am. I do get it, I just don't think its as extreme as you're making it sound.

Yes, you are correct!!! Sorry if I was coming off like these are completely different interpretations of her own songs. While I haven't done a side by side as yet, the few songs I have heard I do notice some subtleties - mostly in instrumentation - like there might be something new used in a Taylor version vs. the original, but yes they are pretty true by and by. And no, you don't sound like you're judging me!

Quote
VoodooLounge13

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
VoodooLounge13

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
VoodooLounge13
I admit I don't really get the Masters dispute and re-recording all of her albums. I get that she owns those versions, but she still doesn't have the originals, and most radio stations only play the known versions; not Taylor's versions, so I'm not sure what she really accomplished there

Thats kinda what I thought but the more I read about it the more I'm impressed by it. As I understand it, it was really just a project for her. Like, she hoped it would catch on, but it was more likely to not than it would. She wanted to re-record them so that she owned those versions so that IF people wanted them, they could get them from her instead of someone else who owns them. I guess she did it at the perfect time, because it took off with her fans and now seemingly if you DON'T use the new version, she doesn't necessarily call you out, but it does seem there's this machine that movie studios and the like don't want to risk that she might. So in essence they've bought into her whole thing and now its become this movement. Which in itself is very cool. Paul McCartney never owned the Beatles stuff, but imagine if he did and he had the personal say of whether these songs could be in this movie? We certainly know with the Stones that the music industry history is FULL of unfair things like this for young artists, so its cool that she's taking it back and owning it. They are hers, she should, the same way the Stones should have owned what Allen Klein ended up getting.

When I thought about listening to her albums I'm like "f this, this'll be like when Ozzy OSbourne rerecorded Blizzard of Ozz. I'm going to the original, not this new update." But over time, I've understood more why she's doing it and while I'm not buying her records, I get why I'd listen to these over the originals. They sound the same and she's doing it on her terms. I thought it was dumb but now I think its really cool that her pet project became this much bigger thing. She wasn't really asking for it to catch on, it just kinda happened, which seems like a nice thing in the industry full of horror stories. And hopefully can change the amount of ownership artists will have of their early career work.

So, this is actually how I came to buy a large chunk of her catalog - because I wanted the original versions before they were gone forever. And if I was going to buy anymore of her albums, I might as well track down the definitive versions!!! It's the original versions of songs I know and was tortured with as a middle school girls' soccer coach years ago, so I wanted those originals, and then from there, I'd move on to the Taylor versions - all of which I was hoping would be more in the vein of Folklore/Evermore, but alas they are not.

Wasn't aware that powers that be are buying into the re-recordings too - so then she has succeeded in basically erasing the past originals. I do hope she can bring light to this horrible standard - The Beatles, The Stones, Billy Joel, Taylor - the industry is full of artists being taken advantage of unfortunately.

I mean yes and no. The new recordings sound exactly like the originals and were made with that in mind. That was their intention and not to change them much. Also the originals are still pretty much available anywhere. Stores and Spotify and YouTube etc. I don't think she's trying to erase anything, she just wants to own the songs she wrote. I really do understand where you're coming from, but its not like she rerecorded them and they're different. They were faithful recreations of her own songs that she owns. I think if you did an A and B comparison you probably wouldn't know the difference, but I'm seriously not judging you if it can sound like I am. I do get it, I just don't think its as extreme as you're making it sound.

Yes, you are correct!!! Sorry if I was coming off like these are completely different interpretations of her own songs. While I haven't done a side by side as yet, the few songs I have heard I do notice some subtleties - mostly in instrumentation - like there might be something new used in a Taylor version vs. the original, but yes they are pretty true by and by. And no, you don't sound like you're judging me!

Glad to hear it. In general, I'm always a fan of originals staying in print. When Blizzard Of Oz and Diary Of A Madman were re-recorded, they tried to wipe those original off the face of the plant. That was wrong 1. because originals should always be available if you're gonna update. Its literally what we've heard from 30 years. And 2. because they erased the bass and drum tracks of the originals and recorded new ones, so to me that is very different. Yes, Taylor Swift is effectively doing the same, but I guess the intention behind it is different. Its to own those masters, as opposed to Ozzy and more Sharon Osbourne trying to rewriter and erase history.

So while Taylor is kinda doing the same, which is why I wanted to make it clear I wasn't judging your opinion cause I agree with you there, I get why she's doing it and for her its less about a band and more "her". Replacing Bob Daisley and Lee Kerslake is like re-recording the Stones and erasing Bill and Charlie. No one knows who's in Taylor's band, which isn't to say we shouldn't, but why I think its less of a deal. And she seems to be doing it lovingly and not vindictively like Ozzy did. But overall, I always think both should be available. She will certainly push hers and due to public opinion now it seems those will become the new standbys. But the originals should be around if you want them (thats what my wife has that I've been listening to), and these also seem less severe than say when Twisted Sister re-recorded Stay Hungry 30 years later. Maybe its more what you wanted the original to sound like, but you all sound 30 years older. Taylor for the most part still sounds the same as she did a decade and 15 years ago, again making it more tolerable I think to everyone.

That’s a great final point about her sounding the same. Maybe that’s why she has t redone her debut album yet because there she does sound younger. Was wondering about it and that might well be the reason.

Quote
Tate
Yeah this has been a hot topic of late-- All I've heard is "She puts on a spectacular show for her fans," but nobody has told me, "He music is AMAZING!" or "Her songwriting is AMAZING!" or "Her musicianship is AMAZING!" All I hear is "Her songs aren't bad," or, "Her latest is actually pretty good." Nobody has said, "You have GOT to hear her latest, you'll be blown away!!" or any such thing. So if. it's all about her big stadium show, and NOT the songs, than why is she so absurdly famous?

This all said, I am glad she puts forth a positive message and seems to be a very positive influence on her fanbase. There have been megastars that I have been less impressed by... but I've never seen anyone so famous at any one time as she is now in my lifetime. Not Michael Jackson, or Beiber, or Madonna... Nobody has been in the headlines daily like she is.

I need a song or two to really impress me. Does it exist?

Would also recommend Tis The Damn Season, which has a bit of Memory Motel longing to it....



]

The motivation for Taylor's endeavor to rework her previous albums stems from 2019 when entertainment tycoon Scooter Braun acquired the rights to her earlier music pieces. This development was particularly distressing for Swift, who publicly voiced her concerns, describing it as her "worst-case scenario". To add to her dismay, these master recordings were later sold to an investment consortium.

By recreating them, Swift ensures her ownership rights to these re-recorded albums under her current recording agreement.


[economictimes.indiatimes.com]

Swift’s behind-the-scenes moves became front-page news when Big Machine sold to private-equity group Ithaca Holdings, an entity owned by powerhouse music manager Scooter Braun. He then sold her masters to another company, Shamrock Holdings, for a reported $300 million in 2019. On a business level, Braun’s move was smart: Swift’s master recordings reap profits whenever the songs are streamed or bought. On the personal front, it was contentious: Swift claims Braun, who manages stars like Kanye West and Justin Bieber, has repeatedly bullied her, and so she slammed the sale publicly and promised to rerecord those original six albums, this time with the masters under her own control. Anyone who hits play on an old version of Swift’s early songs right now will still pay into the bank of Braun.

[time.com]

Yes I knew about Braun and Taylor's disdain for him, as well as the sale of the catalog to the equity group. It was a bold move for sure, and it has worked for her I'm sure in large part because of the massive fan base that she has accumulated.

Taylor Swift Passes The Beatles for Most Weeks in Billboard 200’s Top 10 in Last 60 Years

2/26/2024
By Keith Caulfield

Her 16 top 10 albums have logged a combined 384 weeks in the top 10, surpassing the Fab Four's 382.

Taylor Swift carves out another Billboard chart record as she surpasses The Beatles for the most weeks spent in the top 10 on the Billboard 200 albums chart in the last 60 years across all her top 10-charting albums combined.

On the latest Billboard 200 chart (dated March 2), Swift has three albums in the top 10, which ups her cumulative total of weeks in the top 10 to 384 — across all her 16-top 10-charting albums combined. She’s in the top 10 on the latest list with three former No. 1s: 1989 (Taylor’s Version) at No. 6, Lover at No. 7 and Midnights at No. 9. (Though all three albums are in the top 10 in a singular week, they contribute three weeks to her overall total.)

Since the Billboard 200 combined its previously separate mono and stereo album charts on the Aug. 17, 1963-dated chart, Swift now has the most weeks in the top 10. She steps past The Beatles, who have a total of 382 weeks in the top 10 across their 32 top 10-charting albums. (The Billboard 200 began publishing on a regular, weekly basis in March of 1956.)

Swift first visited the top 10 on the Nov. 24, 2007-dated chart when her self-titled debut climbed 26-8. The Beatles first hit the top 10 on the Feb. 8, 1964, chart, when Meet the Beatles! vaulted 92-3. The Beatles were last in the top 10 on the Nov. 12, 2022-dated chart, when a deluxe reissue of the 1966 album Revolver prompted its re-entry on the list at No. 4.

Among Swift’s top 10-charting albums, the one with the most weeks in the top 10 is Midnights, with 68 weeks in the region. It’s followed by 1989 (60), Fearless (58), Lover (54) and Folklore (30).

As for The Beatles, the band’s five albums with the most weeks in the top 10 are Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band (35), Abbey Road, A Hard Day’s Night (28 each), Meet the Beatles! (21) and 1 (20).

Following Swift and The Beatles among acts the most weeks in the top 10 (since August 1963) are The Rolling Stones (with 309), Barbra Streisand (277) and Drake and Mariah Carey (233 each).

[www.billboard.com]

Now that she is the supreme embodiment of pop star-ness in the 2020s, bringing joy, identity, cohesion and good songs to billions around the planet, it's time for the backlash, at least from the progressive side of life, the venerable left-wing mag New Statesman over here in the UK has run some gloriously censorious, finger-wagging judgements in recent features like 'Taylor Swift's hollow empowerment narrative' and 'Taylor Swift's triumphant incoherence' - Also, Boyzone heartthrob, or just throb, Shane Lynch, thinks she's a satanist. Paint it black you devil!!

Quote
VoodooLounge13

Quote
Kurt

Quote
Tate

I need a song or two to really impress me. Does it exist?

Yes.
I will give you an ALBUM or two...
Listen to Folklore and Evermore. Both releases are astounding.

Needing to go back to Folklore, as I was initially disappointed with it and couldn't get all the accolades heaped at it. Evermore though IS friggin' brilliant. Easily one of my Top 50 by ANYONE. Maybe even Top 40 or 30. Phenomenal.

If you can, watch the documentary 'Folklore: The Long Pond Studio Sessions' for an even greater appreciation of that album. The entire film is on Disney+ and you can catch snips of it on YouTube and elsewhere...worth it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-02-27 16:04 by Kurt.

State of Grace. That's the track I always suggest to non-swifties. Great track. A bit U2-esque.

With the Folklore & Evermore albums she convinced the music aficionado. But her real talent is pop music: Red & 1989 are her peak albums IMHO.

Thanks for all the recs, friends. I will explore these!

TODAY SALES OF SECOND CONCERT IN MADRID
HAS ANYONE GOT A SPARE CODE TO ACCESS PRESALE TICKETS?
I WOULD APPRECIATE

Quote
Tate

Thanks for all the recs, friends. I will explore these!

You could also watch her 2023 concert movie 'The Eras Tour' (3 hrs) on AppleTV+ , Amazon Prime Video or YouTube Movies & TV - [TV.Apple.com] , [www.Amazon.com] , [www.YouTube.com] .

I keep seeing stuff about how huge she is - yet I think I have only ever heard one of her songs!
Might have to give her a listen.

I'm 41 by the way - for context.

Quote
Irix

Quote
Tate

Thanks for all the recs, friends. I will explore these!

You could also watch her 2023 concert movie 'The Eras Tour' (3 hrs) on AppleTV+ , Amazon Prime Video or YouTube Movies & TV - [TV.Apple.com] , [www.Amazon.com] , [www.YouTube.com] .

He could yes, but as someone who's not been lured in, I don't know if that would do it. The spectacle is something to see, but if one is looking to be wow'd and not think she's just some Pop Blonde chick, I think exploring some of her more mature, more recent stuff is the way to hook em in. I know my whole view on her changed after hearing the Evermore album. Again, the maturity of that vs. the early stuff is night and day. Though to GasLight's point, she is known for those Pop songs.

Here is Evermore - another fine example of her songwriting....

The new tour film will also be available on Disney+ in like 3 weeks as well, which is what convinced me.

Quote
MadMetaphoricalMax
Now that she is the supreme embodiment of pop star-ness in the 2020s, bringing joy, identity, cohesion and good songs to billions around the planet, it's time for the backlash, at least from the progressive side of life, the venerable left-wing mag New Statesman over here in the UK has run some gloriously censorious, finger-wagging judgements in recent features like 'Taylor Swift's hollow empowerment narrative' and 'Taylor Swift's triumphant incoherence' - Also, Boyzone heartthrob, or just throb, Shane Lynch, thinks she's a satanist. Paint it black you devil!!

I’ve read that before. Her alleged ties to Satanism and luring in children, the snake references in some of her songs, etc. not sure what to make of all that. Seems extreme to me. That is my one gripe with her though - her tendency to use the Lord’s name in vain. I’ve slipped and done it occasionally myself but it seems to be popping up more and more in her music. And as one with such reach it just bothers me, but that’s my own beef.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-03-01 07:15 by VoodooLounge13.

................I think she is refreshing, because she can actually write songs. As far as the songs I have heard all have a similar "sing verse, beat up, sing verse, beat down. I am not a musician, so I am probably not describing it correctly.

............on the other hand, IMO, her friend Ed Sheeran is arguably the best artist of the last decade or so. When I hear any song by him for the first time, I am amazed because I have no clue who it is!;and no silly stupid lyrics.
for
.............back to "Swifty"...........my wife and I saw the boys in Chicago in 2013, and when Mick brought Taylor Swift out for "as tears go by", My eyes filled up (no jokes please). I was upset that Mick did not bring out Marianne Faithfull to sing it. However, Mick is a shrewd businessman, and aligning the Stones with relevant and also older musicians through the years only has only solidified their place in history, and has kept them relevant. Have you ever noticed that their are families, and "teenagers" at all of there shows?.

..........btw.....Keef rolled his eyes and had that "you gotta be kidding me look" on his face.

..........in other news, kind of gets me b*****it that Mick doesn't bring Bill Wyman on for a full tour. He also had Bill stripped out of older photos (re: the cover of "rarities 1971-2003. I say "****MickJagger">

Quote
RollingFreak
The new tour film will also be available on Disney+ in like 3 weeks as well, which is what convinced me.

Its beyond stunning. I rented it on amazon for two days to see what the fuss was all about.

Ended up watching all 3 hours of it from start to finish three times

Its ridiculously, jaw droppingly great. One of the best concert movies I've ever seen by anyone.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
RollingFreak
The new tour film will also be available on Disney+ in like 3 weeks as well, which is what convinced me.

Its beyond stunning. I rented it on amazon for two days to see what the fuss was all about.

Ended up watching all 3 hours of it from start to finish three times

Its ridiculously, jaw droppingly great. One of the best concert movies I've ever seen by anyone.

Yup. I'm a huge Stop Making Sense/Last Waltz fan, and while I don't think its on par with those, I certainly walked away thinking:

1. this woman can sing
2. this woman has a LOT of songs
3. she can write a really catchy hook
4. what a GREAT stage show. Props to her crew
5. she genuinely seems to love what she's doing

I've also watched it 2 more times since seeing it in theaters. Its a really cool document of a special tour that has truly taken the world by storm and they did a great job capturing it that I would think in the future you could still look back and be like "yeah, I can see what the fuss is about." I can understand people having "Taylor overload" but when you start paying attention, it seems she's honestly taking advantage of it in the best way possible for her fans and just continuing to do what she does. Absolutely had that stadium in the palm of her hand similar to a Bruce Springsteen or a Bono and thats a really rare talent.

Now 4 different versions of her new album released. She's releasing a new one every week it seems. At this rate, there will be an entire album worth of bonus tracks by the time the thing comes out. So essentially she would have recorded two albums, if that's the case!!!

And for those stating who knows if she'll be around in 50 years, she's already been around for 18. I don't see her going anywhere anytime soon. Only way that happens is when she decides to marry and settle down - then things will slow down for her.

And to those stating that she's just enjoying her moment, again, her debut single was a big success. Taylor hit the ground running and has never looked back. Maybe most here weren't aware of her from her beginnings because you didn't/don't listen to country, but her debut album had hits.

She's got the staying power. She's the fans. She's the longevity. And she's creative as hell.

Quote
VoodooLounge13

And for those stating who knows if she'll be around in 50 years, she's already been around for 18.

In the 1980s/90s, Madonna and Michael Jackson were hyped as the Queen & King of Pop .... but how much of this hype will be left after 50 years?

Quote
Irix

Quote
VoodooLounge13

And for those stating who knows if she'll be around in 50 years, she's already been around for 18.

In the 1980s/90s, Madonna and Michael Jackson were hyped as the Queen & King of Pop .... but how much of this hype will be left after 50 years?

Curious on this one so just looked it up. MJ had 6.5bn streams on Spotify in 2023, so holding up pretty well 40 years after his biggest album (for context Taylor was top streamed artist at c.30bn)